/r_  i 


OF   THE 

T h e o  1  o a ieal   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.J. 


BV  813 

.E3  18A1 

Edwards 

,  Peter, 

Candid 

reasons 

for 

renouncing  the 

principles 

U  i- 


I  7-U  r/ 


/ 


/ 


CANDID  REASONS 

FOR 

RENOUNCING  THE  PRINCIPLES 

OF 

ANTLPtEDOBAPTISM. 

ALSO, 

A  SHORT  METHOD  WITH  THE  BAPTISTS. 


BY 

PETER  EDWARDS, 

SEVERAL   YEARS   PASTOR  OF  A  BAPTIST  CHURCH   AT   PORTSEA,  HANTS. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN    BOARD    OF    PUBLICATION. 

JAME3    RUSSELL,   PUBLISHING   AGENT. 

1841. 


Printed  by 
WILLIAM   S.    MARTIEN. 


CONTENTS. 

Page. 

I.  Introduction, — the  Question  stated,      -  9 

II.  Arguments  of  the  Baptists  against  Infant 
Baptism, 17 

III.  Arguments  in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism,       50 

IV.  A  Scheme  of  the  Controversy  on  Infant 
Baptism, '110 

V.  A  Short  Method  with  the  Baptists,       -       135 

VI.  A  Case  submitted  to  the  consideration  of 

the  Baptists,         ...         -  182 

VII.  The  Mode  of  Baptism ;  the  Force  of  the 
Term,  the  Circumstances  and  Alhisions 
considered,  -         -         -         -         183 

VIII.  The  Practical  Use  of  Psedobaptism,         217 


TO    THE 

CHURCH  AND  CONGREGATION 

MEETING    IN    WHITES'   ROW,   PORTSEA,    HANTS. 

DEARLY  BELOVED, 

After  officiating  among  you,  as  Pas- 
tor and  Minister,  between  ten  and  eleven 
years,  it  seemed  natural  to  address  you 
in  a  publication  intended  to  account  for 
that  change  of  sentiment  in  me,  which 
has  proved  the  occasion  of  our  separa- 
tion. 

Two  eminent  writers,  Mr.  Booth  and 
Dr.  Williams,  have  both  contributed  to 
this.  The  latter  has  my  acknowledg- 
ments; the  former  my  animadversions. 
As  Mr.  B.  had  no  design  to  discover  the 
fallacy  of  the  Baptist  scheme,  I  thought 
it  proper  to  show  in  what  way  his  book 
has  operated,  and  is  likely  still  to  ope- 
rate, contrary  to  the  design  of  the  au- 
thor. 

I  have  presented  the  whole  scheme  to 
the  reader  in  the  same  point  of  view  in 


8 

which  it  was  exhibited  to  my  own  mind. 
In  composing  it,  I  have  endeavoured  to 
avoid  every  thing  foreign  and  bitter;  that 
as  the  truth  has  been  my  object,  I  wished 
to  say  nothing  that  should  divert  the  at- 
tention of  the  reader  from  it.  Wishing 
that  you  and  I  may  grow  in  grace  and  in 
the  knowledge  of  Christ,  I  remain,  in  the 
same  esteem  and  love, 

Your's,  in  our  common  Lord, 

PETER  EDWARDS. 

PoRTSEA,  January  12,  1795. 


INTRODUCTION. 

A  FAIR  STATEMENT  OF  THE  INQUIRY. 


THESIS  I. 

The  only  thing  which,  in  any  dispute,  should 
engage  our  attention,  is  this :  "  What  is  truth?'' 
And  he  who  wishes  to  find  it,  will  endeavour 
to  adopt  that  plan  which  will  bring  him  soon- 
est to  what  he  seeks.  There  are  two  things, 
in  all  matters  of  controversy,  which  greatly 
facilitate  our  search:  First,  that  we  set  aside 
all  those  things  about  which  we  are  agreed, 
and  fix  our  attention  to  that  only  on  which 
a  difference  of  opinion  may  arise;  and  second- 
ly, that  this  difference  be  stated  in  a  manner 
tlie  most  plain  and  simple.  To  either  of 
which,  no  person  who  seeks  the  truth  can 
form  the  least  objection. 

THESIS  II. 

As  this  inquiry  lies  between  those  who 
pass  under  the  denomination  of  Psedobap- 
tists  and  Antipsedobaptists,  it  will  be  proper, 
in  order  to  ascertain  wherein  they  differ  on 
the  subject  of  baptism,  to  give  the  sentiments 
of  each.  Antipsepobaptists  consider  those  per- 
2 


10  INTKODUCTIO?^. 

sons  as  meet  subjects  of  baptism,  who  are  sup- 
posed to  possess  faith  in  Christ,  and  those 
only.  Paedobaptists  agree  with  them  in  this, 
that  believers  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism; but  deny  that  such  only  are  proper  sub- 
jects. They  think,  that,  together  with  such 
believing  adults  who  have  not  yet  been  bap- 
tized, their  infants  have  a  right  to  baptism  as 
well  as  their  parents. 

1  have  lately  conversed  with  many  Bap- 
tists, who  knew  so  little  of  the  sentiment  of 
their  brethren,  that  they  supposed  adult  bap- 
tism was  entirely  rejected  by  Paedobaptists; 
and  when  I  endeavoured,  from  their  confes- 
sions of  faith,  &c.  to  convince  my  Baptist 
friends  that  they  held  adult  baptism  as  well 
as  themselves,  some  believed  and  marvelled, 
but  others  remained  in  doubt. 

THESIS  III. 

From  this  view  of  the  sentiments  of  each, 
it  appears  that  both  parties  are  agreed  on 
the  article  of  adult  baptism,  which  must  there- 
fore be  set  aside  as  a  matter  entirely  out  of 
dispute;  for  it  can  answer  no  good  purpose 
for  one  to  prove  what  the  other  will  not  de- 
ny. Now,  seeing  they  are  so  far  of  one 
mind,  (I  speak  of  the  subject,  not  of  the 
mode,)  the  difference  between  them  con- 
cerns infants  only;  and  the  simple  question 
which  remains  to  be  decided,  is  this.  Are  in- 
fants fit  subjects  of  baptism,  or  are  they  not  ? 
On  this  question  the  whole  turns.  The  Paedo- 
baptists affirm,  and  Antipaedobaptists  deny. 


INTRODUCTION.  1  1 


THESIS   IV. 

The  simple  question  being  as  I  have  now 
stated  it,  Are  infants  fit  subjects  of  baptism, 
or  are  they  not?  it  will  clearly  follow,  that  all 
those  places  which  relate  to  believer's  bap- 
tism, can  prove  nothing  on  the  side  of  Bap- 
tists; and  the  reason  is,  they  have  no  rela- 
tion to  the  question.  To  illustrate  this,  I  ask 
a  Baptist,  Is  an  infant  a  fit  subject  of  bap- 
tism? No,  says  he.  Wherefore?  Because  the 
Scriptures  say.  Repent  and  be  baptized — If 
thou  believest,  thou  mayest — I  interpose,  and 
say,  Your  answer  is  not  in  point.  I  asked, 
Is  an  infant  a  fit  subject  of  baptism  ?  You  an- 
swer by  telling  me  that  a  penitent  adult  is 
such.  But  as  I  asked  no  question  concern- 
ing an  adult,  the  answer  is  nothing  at  all  to 
the  purpose.  If  I  should  ask  whether  an  in- 
fant were  a  creature  of  the  rational  kind, 
would  it  be  a  good  answer,  if  any  person 
should  say,  that  adults  were  of  that  descrip- 
tion ?  No  answer  can  be  good,  if  it  does  not 
directly  relate  to  the  question  proposed;  for 
then,  properly  speaking,  it  is  no  answer  to  the 
question.  And  therefore,  if  I  ask  whether  an 
infant  is  a  proper  subject  of  baptism,  and  an- 
other should  bring  twenty  places  to  prove 
the  propriety  of  baptizing  adults;  as  all  this 
would  be  nothing  to  the  question,  so  no- 
thing would  be  proved  thereby,  either  for  or 
against. 

We  may  from  hence  estimate  the  strength 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

of  each  party,  as  they  respect  one  another. 
The  Psedobaptist  has  just  so  much  strength 
against  a  Baptist,  as  his  arguments  weigh  on 
the  affirmative, and  no  more;  and  the  Baptist 
has  no  more  strength  against  him,  but  as  his 
arguments  weigh  on  the  negative.  Whatever 
arguments  a  Baptist  may  bring,  to  evince  in- 
fant baptism  to  be  wrong,  whether  they  be 
many  or  few,  good  or  bad,  it  is  all  his 
strength;  he  has  not  a  grain  more  on  his 
side.  For  as  it  lies  on  neither  of  these  to 
prove  adult  baptism,  (it  being  a  thing  pro- 
fessed and  used  by  both,  and  is  therefore  no 
subject  of  dispute)  those  arguments  that 
prove  it  can  have  no  place  here.  This  being 
carefully  observed,  we  shall  see  which  of 
these  has  the  fairest  pretensions  to  truth. 

THESIS  V. 

Whatever  may,  in  reality,  be  the  force  of 
argument  on  either  side,  respecting  this  ques- 
tion, there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  side  is 
the  true  one,  on  which  the  arguments  are 
found  to  preponderate.  If  the  arguments 
for  infant  baptism  are  stronger  than  any  that 
can  be  produced  against  it,  then  infant  bap- 
tism must  be  right;  and  so  the  easy  and  sure 
way  of  coming  to  a  decision  is,  to  collect  the 
arguments  on  both  sides,  try  their  validity, 
and  compare  them  together.  This,  in  the  fear 
of  God,  I  shall  endeavour  to  do.  First,  I 
will  set  down  the  arguments  against  infant 
baptism,  and  examine  them  as  I  proceed; 


INTRODUCTION. 


13 


and  then  those  which  make  for  it;  and  after 
that,  I  will  compare  them  together  in  oppo- 
site cohimns.  By  this  process,  which  is  the 
fairest  I  am  acquainted  with,  we  shall  see 
whether  Baptists  or  Pasdobaptists  have  the 
truth  on  their  side. 

The  whole  import  of  these  propositions 
is — That  both  parties  agree  about  adult  bap- 
tism— That  when  a  Baptist  has  proved  adult 
baptism,  he  has  proved  nothing  against  a 
Psedobaptist — That  the  only  question  being 
this.  Are  infants  fit  subjects  of  baptism,  or 
are  they  not?  it  is  evident  that  those  pass- 
ages of  Scripture,  which  prove  adult  baptism, 
will  not  answer  this  question — And,  that  ar- 
guments for  and  against  being  compared, 
that  side  is  the  true  one,  on  which  they  pre- 
ponderate. 

If  any  thing  can  make  this  matter  plainer, 
and  I  wish  it  to  be  made  plain,  perhaps  the 
introduction  of  a  short  familiar  dialogue  may 
do  it.  We  will  therefore  suppose  a  conversa- 
tion between  a  Baptist  and  a  Psedobaptist; 
the  Baptist  speaking  as  follows: 

Bap.  I  wonder  very  much  you  should  not 
agree  with  me  in  sentiment,  respecting  the 
subjects  of  baptism. 

Pxdo.  There  is  nothing  in  this  to  wonder 
at, since  we  all  see  but  in  part:  it  is  our  hap- 
piness to  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul. 

Bap.  That  which  makes  me  wonder  is 
this,  that  the  sentiment  I  hold  is  so  clearly 
revealed  in  Scripture. 

Pasdo.   What  sentiment  is  that  you  hold. 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

and  which  you  say  is  so  clearly  revealed  in 
Scripture? 

Bap.  I  hold  what  is  commonly  called  be- 
lievers' baptism;  or,  that  it  is  right  to  baptize 
a  person  professing  faith  in  Christ. 

Psedo.  If  that  be  your  sentiment,  I  grant  it 
is  clearly  revealed;  but  in  this  we  are  agreed, 
it  is  my  sentiment  as  well  as  yours. 

Bap.  But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  my  senti- 
ment. I  meant  to  have  said,  that  it  is  wrong 
to  baptize  infants. 

Psedo.  Then  you  and  I  differ  only  about 
infants? 

Bap.  If  you  grant  adult  baptism  to  be 
right,  it  is  only  about  infants  we  differ. 

Paedo.  I  do  grant  it.  And  then  do  you 
mean  to  say,  that  it  is  clearly  revealed  in 
Scripture,  that  it  is  wrong  to  baptize  infants? 

Bap.  I  do  mean  to  say  that. 

Psedo.  How  do  you  prove  it? 

Bap.  I  prove  it  by  Acts  viii.  37.  "  If  thou 
belie  vest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest." 

Psedo.  You  have  indeed  proved  believers' 
baptism  to  be  right;  but  I  asked  you,  how 
you  proved  infant  baptism  to  be  wrong? 

Bap.  Must  not  infant  baptism  be  wrong, 
if  believers'  baptism  be  right? 

Psedo.  No  more  than  believers'  baptism 
must  be  wrong,  if  infant  baptism  be  right. 
Would  you  think  I  had  proved  that  infants 
would  be  lost,  by  proving  that  believing 
adults  would  be  saved? 

Bap.  Certainly  I  should  not. 

Psedo.  Why? 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

Bap.  Because  the  question  would  be  only 
about  infants;  and  we  cannot  infer  the  loss  of 
an  infant  from  the  salvation  of  a  believing 
adult. 

Pxdo.  Very  true.  Then  that  which  proves 
infant  baptism  wrong,  must  not  be  the  same 
that  proves  adult  baptism  to  be  right. 

Bap.  I  grant  it,  and  think  there  is  suffi- 
cient proof  against  it  beside. 

Pxdo.  This  is  the  very  point.  You  pro- 
duce your  proof  against  it,  and  I  will  pro- 
duce mine  for  it.  If  your  proof  be  found 
stronger  against,  than  mine  for,  you  have  the 
truth  on  your  side;  if  not,  the  truth  is  on 
mine. 

Bap.  Nothing  can  be  more  fair;  and  I  am 
willing  to  put  it  to  the  test. 


%^\i  ^v  -hAj^ 


TK.'I-o  » 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER  I. 
ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ARGUMENT    I. 

A  person  who  has  a  right  to  a  positive  institute  must  be 
expressly  mentioned  as  having  that  right ;  but  infants 
are  not  so  mentioned,  therefore  they  have  not  that  right. 

As  the  whole  force  of  this  argument  turns 
upon  the  words  express  and  explicit,  which 
Baptist  writers  commonly  use,  the  reader, 
in  order  to  form  a  just  opinion  upon  the 
subject,  should  clearly  understand  their  im- 
port. And  since  I  shall  often  have  occasion 
to  use  them,  the  reader  will  meet  with  an  ex- 
planation of  the  term  "explicit"  in  another 
place.  At  present  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say, 
that  both  these  terms  stand  opposed  to  infer- 
ence, analogy,  and  implication.  And  when 
the  Baptists  say  there  is  no  express  command 
for  infant  baptism,  they  mean  there  is  no 
command  "  in  so  many  words,"  as  "  thou 
shalt  baptize  infants,"  or  something  equiva- 


18  ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 

lent.  This  being  premised,  I  say  of  the  argu- 
ment, it  is  assuming,  contracted,  false.  It  is 
very  assuming,  because  it  seems  to  dictate 
to  the  ever-blessed  God  in  what  manner  he 
ought  to  speak  to  his  creatures.  Since  it  is 
no  where  contained  in  his  word,  and  he 
knows  best  how  to  communicate  his  mind  to 
men,  it  little  becomes  such  creatures  as  we 
are,  to  lay  down  rules  by  which  he  shall  pro- 
ceed. To  such  who  thus  assume,  it  may  pro- 
perly be  said,  "  Who  hath  known  the  mind  of 
the  Lord?  or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor? 
For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him, 
are  all  things:  To  whom  be  glory  for  ever. 
Amen." 

It  is  very  contracted,  because  it  supposes 
we  cannot  understand  what  God  says,  but 
when  he  speaks  to  us  in  one  particular  way. 
Certain  it  is  that  the  most  important  things 
are  set  forth  in  Scripture,  in  many  different 
ways;  and  we  may  come  at  the  truth  by  an 
indirect,  as  certainly  as  by  a  direct  expres- 
sion :  e.  g.  "  When  the  apostle  says  he  was 
caught  up  into  the  third  heaven,  I  certainly 
know,  there  is  a  first  and  a  second,  though  I 
ho  where  had  read  expressly  of  any  such 
thing."  But  what  is  most  material,  I  affirm 
that 

It  is  very  false:  Because  (to  wave  other 
instances,  and  fix  on  one  only)  a  subject  is 
admitted  to  a  positive  institute,  and  that  ad- 
mission is  according  to  truth,  and  so  held 
and  practised  by  all,  who  use  Christian  rites; 
when  yet  there  is  no  express  law  or  example 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  19 

to  support  it,  in  all  the  word  of  God.  It  is 
the  case  of  women  to  which  I  allude,  and 
their  admission  to  the  Lord's  table. 

I  acknowledge  it  is  right  to  admit  them, 
and  so  do  all,  who  use  the  Lord's  Supper; 
but  as  to  express  law  or  example,  there  is  no 
such  thing  in  Scripture.  If  it  be  said,  that 
women  are  fit  subjects  of  baptism — that  they 
are  capable  of  religious  advantages — that 
they  have  a  right  to  church-membership, 
and  therefore  a  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  I 
grant  it — And  then  the  argument  is  false;  for 
if  women  are  admitted  because  they  are  fit 
subjects  of  baptism,  &c.  they  are  admitted  by 
something,  which  is  not  express  law  or  ex- 
ample. But  the  argument  I  am  opposing 
says,  ^'A  person  who  has  a  right  to  positive 
institutes,  must  be  expressly  mentioned  as 
having  that  right."  Now,  if  women  are  not 
so  mentioned  with  respect  to  the  Supper,  the 
practice  of  admitting  them  is  wrong,  or  this 
argument  is  false.  This  argument  indeed  is 
false;  the  practice  is  by  no  means  wrong. 
And  to  show  the  fallacy  of  the  Baptist  sys- 
tem at  large,  I  will  undertake,  in  the  sequel, 
to  prove  that,  upon  the  principles  and  reason- 
ings of  the  Baptists,  a  woman,  however  quali- 
fied, can  have  no  right  whatever  to  the  Lord's 
table. 

"  There  is  no  express  command  or  exam- 
ple for  infant  baptism!"  This  being  a  fa- 
vourite argument  with  Baptists,  and  the  case 
of  women,  in  this  respect,  being  the  same  as 
that  of  infants,  they  will  not  suffer  an  in- 


20  ARGUMENTS   AGAINST 

Stance,  so  fatal  to  their  system,  to  pass  by 
without  making  an  effort  to  overturn  it.  They 
know  very  well,  I  mean  the  thinking  part,  es- 
pecially those  who  write,  that  they  cannot 
maintain  this  argument  against  infants,  with- 
out producing  an  explicit  warrant  for  female 
communion.  They  therefore  affirm,  that  the 
Scriptures  afford  such  a  warrant,  and  that  it 
is  found  in  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  "  Let  a  man  [^dn- 
thropos]  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat 
of  that  bread,  &c.'^  It  is  certainly  here,  or 
nowhere.  I  have  known  many  who  took  this 
for  an  express  word  for  women.  I  did  so 
myself  for  some  years,  till  Mr.  Booth's  at- 
tempt to  prove  it  convinced  me  of  the  con- 
trary. 

An  express  word,  in  the  present  case,  must 
be  one  that  specifies  the  sex;  as  Acts  viii. 
12,  "  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women."  {Andres  kaigunaikes.']  But  I  ask, 
is  Anthropos  an  express  word  for  a  woman? 
Mr.  Booth  affirms  it  is.  Take  it  in  his  own 
words,  vol.  ii.  p.  73.  "  In  regard  to  the  sup- 
posed want  of  an  explicit  warrant  for  admit- 
ting women  to  the  holy  table,  we  reply  by 
demanding,  does  not  Paul,  when  he  says, 
Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him 
eat,  enjoin  a  reception  of  the  sacred  Supper? 
Does  not  the  term  Anthropos,  there  used, 
often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species,  with- 
out regard  to  sex?  Have  we  not  the  authority 
of  lexicographers,  and,  which  is  incompara- 
bly more,  the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for 
understanding  it  thus  in  that  passage?  When 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  21 

the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  opposed,  the 
word  for  a  man  is  not  Anthropos,hn\,  *^;2eer." 
This  is  all  about  the  word,  except  a  quotation, 
which  is  not  material. 

The  reader  is  desired  to  observe,  that,  as 
Mr.  B.  has  undertaken  to  produce  an  explicit 
warrant  for  female  communion,  he  can  derive 
no  help  from  analogy,  or  inference,  or  any 
thing  of  that  kind.  The  words  he  brings  for 
proof  must  contain  their  own  unequivocal 
evidence,  independent  of  every  other  con- 
sideration. If  this  be  not  the  case,  his  ex- 
plicit warrant  is  a  mere  fiction. 

Now  for  the  explicit  warrant.  Mr.  B.  says, 
"Does  not  Paul,  when  he  says,  let  a  man 
examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat,  enjoin 
a  reception  of  the  sacred  Supper?  True. 
"  Does  not  the  term  Anthropos^  there  used, 
often  stand  as  the  name  of  our  species,  with- 
out regard  to  sex  ?'^  True  again.  Observe 
this,  OFTEN  STAND !  Not  always.  Does  INIr. 
B.  take  this  for  an  explicit  warrant?  What  a 
demonstration!  And  how  fall  to  the  point! 
But  Mr.  B.  says  it  stands  so  in  the  text.  How 
does  he  know  it?  Why  he  has  two  evidences 
of  this;  a  lexicographer,  i.  e.  a  dictionary 
maker,  and  common  sense.  Common  sense, 
he  says,  is  the  best  of  the  two.  However,  I 
will  take  them  together,  and  proceed  to  ask. 
How  do  they  know  that  the  term  Anthropos 
stands  in  this  text  as  a  name  of  our  species? 
They  must  know  it  either  from  the  word 
itself,  or  from  some  other  ground.  That  they 
cannot  know  it  from  the  word  itself,  is  evi- 


22  ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 

dent  by  this  single  consideration,  that  a  boy, 
who  reads  his  Greek  testament,  may  meet 
with  the  word  a  hundred  times,  where  the 
female  sex  can  by  no  means  be  intended; 
nay,  he  may  find  it  used  several  times,  though 
Mr,  B.  could  not,  to  distinguish  the  male  from 
the  female.  Where  then  is  its  explicitness? 
He  says  it  is  often  used  as  a  name  of  our 
species.  And  is  not  our  English  word  "  Man," 
used  in  the  same  way?  Would  Mr.  B.  take 
that  to  be  an  explicit  word  for  a  woman?  If 
the  word  "  man"  be  often  used  for  a  name  of 
our  species,  as  well  as  Anthropos^  then  one  is 
just  as  explicit  a  word  for  a  woman  as  the 
other;  and  so  Mr.  B.  might  as  well  have  fixed 
on  the  English  word  for  an  explicit  one,  as 
the  Greek.  But  had  he  done  this,  it  would 
have  ruined  his  book;  and  he  has  only  es- 
caped under  the  cover  of  a  Greek  term.  If 
then,  it  cannot  be  known  from  the  word  it- 
self, that  females  are  intended,  it  matters  not, 
in  what  other  way  we  may  know  it,  the 
Baptist  argument  is  entirely  ruined  and  lost. 
But  Mr.  B.  in  the  next  sentence,  will  urge 
the  matter  further,  and  boldly  affirm,  that, 
"  When  the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  op- 
posed, the  word  for  a  man  is  not  Jinthropos, 
but  Aneer.''''  I  know  not  what  Mr.  B.  expect- 
ed to  prove  by  this  assertion;  for  if  it  were 
true,  I  see  not  how  it  is  to  help  him  in  re- 
spect to  his  explicit  warrant ;  but  as  it  is  false, 
it  cannot  help  him  in  any  form,  except  it  be 
to  make  him  more  cautious  in  future.  This 
assertion,  if  it  proceeded  from  ignorance,  is, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  23 

in  a  reader  and  writer  like  Mr.  B.  far  too 
bad;  if  it  did  not  proceed  from  ignorance, 
it  is  far  worse.  I  am  willing  to  suppose  the 
former,  and  acquit  him  of  the  latter. 

Against  this  assertion  of  Mr.  B.  I  will 
now  place  nineteen  instances;  in  every  one 
of  which  there  is  a  distinction  and  opposition 
of  the  sexes,  and  the  word  for  a  man  is  not 
Jineer,  but  Jinthropos.  Some  of  these  are  in 
the  Septuagint,  and  others  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Gen.  ii.  24,  "  Therefore  shall  a  man 
[*,dnf/iropos']  leave  his  father  and  his  mother, 
and  cleave  unto  his  wife."  Gen.  xxvi.  11. 
"  And  Abimelech  charged  all  his  people,  say- 
ing. He  that  toucheth  this  man  [Jinthi^opoii'] 
or  his  wife,  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.'' 
Gen.  xxxiv.  14.  "And  Simeon  and  Levi,  the 
brethren  of  Dinah,  said.  We  cannot  do  this 
thing,  to  give  our  sister  to  one  [Jinthropo~\ 
that  is  uncircumcised."  Deut.  xx.  7,  "  And 
what  man  \Jinthropos\  is  there  that  hath  be- 
trothed a  wife,  and  hath  not  taken  her?" 
Deut.  xvii.  5.  "Then  shalt  thou  bring  forth 
that  man,  [^nthropoii]  or  that  woman."  Jer. 
xliv.  7.  "  Wherefore  commit  ye  this  great  evil 
against  your  souls,  to  cut  off  from  you  man 
[Anthropoii]  and  woman,  child  and  suck- 
ling?" For  other  instances  in  the  Septuagint 
see  Gen.  ii.  18;  Lev.  xix.  20;  Num.  xxv. 
8;  Deut.  xxi.  15 — xxii.  30;  Esther  iv.  11. 

Matt.  xix.  10.  "  His  disciples  say  unto  him, 
If  the  case  of  the  man  \Anthropou'\  be  so 
with  his  WIFE,  it  is  not  good  to  marry." 
Matt.  xix.  3.  "The  Pharisees  also  came  unto 


24  ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 

him,  tempting  him,  and  saying  unto  him,  Is 
it  lawful  for  a  man  \<Jinthropo\  to  put  away 
his  WIFE  for  every  cause ?'^  Mark  x.  7.  "  For 
this  cause  shall  a  man  \Anthropos\  leave  his 
father  and  mother,  and  cleave  to  his  wife." 
1  Cor.  vii.  1.  "Now  concerning  the  things 
whereof  ye  wrote  unto  me,  it  is  good  for  a 
man  \Jinthropo\  not  to  touch  a  woman." 
Matt.  xix.  5.  "  For  this  cause  shall  a  man 
\Anthropos\  leave  his  father  and  mother, 
and  cleave  to  his  icife.^^  Rev.  ix.  7,  8.  "  And 
their  faces  were  as  the  faces  of  men  \Jlnthro- 
2^0/1;']  and  they  had  hair  as  the  hair  of  too- 
?}ien.''  Eph.  v.  31.  "  For  this  cause  shall  a 
man  \_t/9nlhropos']  leave  his  father  and  mo- 
ther, and  shall  be  joined  unto  his  wife.'^ 

After  I  had  collected  some  of  these  in- 
stances, which  I  have  here  set  down,  I  men- 
tioned the  sentence  of  Mr.  B.  and  likewise 
the  instances  which  lay  against  it,  to  a  Bap- 
tist minister,  who  happened  to  be  at  my 
house.  He  thereupon  took  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, and  read  those  places  to  which  I  di- 
rected him.  When  he  had  done  this,  he  was 
greatly  surprised  at  the  incautiousness  of  Mr. 
B.  and  at  the  same  time,  made  the  best  apo- 
logy for  him,  which  the  case  would  admit 
of.  I  then  observed,  that,  had  Mr.  B.  affirm- 
ed that  Jineer  was  more  commonly  used  to 
distinguish  the  sexes,  than  ^nthropos,  he 
would  have  been  right.  Yes,  said  he,  but 
that  would  not  have  answered  Mr.  B.'s  pur- 
pose. Which  indeed  was  very  true;  for  he, 
having  all  through  his  book  insisted  that  in- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  25 

fants  should  not  be  baptized,  because  there 
was  no  express  warrant  for  it,  was  compelled, 
by  his  own  reasoning,  to  bring  forward   an 
explicit  warrant  for  female  conniiunion.   And. 
when  he  comes  to  prove  that  there  is  such  a 
warrant  in  Scripture  for  female  right  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  he  first  of  all  falls  upon  pre- 
sumptive proof,  "  Does  not  the  term  Anthro- 
pos  often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species?" 
As  if  lie  had  said,  If  this  word  often  stands  as 
a  name  of  our  species,  I  presume  it  is  possible 
it  may  so  stand  in  this  text.    In  the  next  place 
he  falls  upon  inferential  proof,  and  sets  a  lexi- 
cographer and  common  sense  to  infer  (for  they 
could  do  no  other)  that  so  it  must  mean  in 
the  text.     And  lastly,  to  make  it  still  worse, 
he  makes  an  evident  mistake,  when  he  says, 
that,  when  the  sexes  are  distinguished  and 
opposed,  the  word  for  a   man   is   not  Aii- 
thropos^  but  Jineer.     This  is  all  Mr.  B.  is 
pleased  to   give   the   reader,   instead,  of  an 
explicit  warrant,  presumption,  inference,  and 
mistake;    and   if  either   he,   or   any  of   his 
readers,  can  satisfy  themselves  with  such  an 
explicit  warrant  as  this,  they  can  neither  of 
them  be  esteemed  very  nice  in  this  article. 

But,  to  set  Mr.  B.  and  his  explicit  warrant 
in  a  clear  point  of  light,  the  reader  has  only 
to  contemplate  those  two  facts  which  have 
just  passed  under  his  eye;  namely,  that  An- 
thropos  is  often  used  as  a  name  of  our  species, 
as  Mr.  B.  affirms;  and  likewise  that  it  is  often 
used  to  distinguish  one  sex  from  the  other. 
Now  with  these  two  facts  in  view  \yiz,  An- 
3 


26  ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 

thropos  is  often  vised  as  a  name  of  our  species, 
and  often  it  is  not  so  used  J  if  a  question  be 
started  concerning  its  meaning  in  any  text, 
let  it  be  1  Cor.  xi.  28,  the  reader  will  see  at 
once  that  it  is  no  explicit  word,  because  he 
will  stand  in  need  of  a  third  thing,  to  deter- 
mine in  what  sense  it  is  used  there;  whereas, 
if  the  word  were  explicit,  nothing  else  would 
be  necessary  to  fix  the  sense.     Now  as  the 
facts  weigh   on   both   sides,   often  against 
OFTEN,  and  as  the  reader  wants  a  third  thing 
to  settle  the  import  of  the  word  in  this  text, 
I  ask,  what  is  this  third  thing?    Lexicogra- 
phers and  common  sense,  says  Mr.  B.    Nay, 
no  ambiguity,  Sir,  we  are  now  talking  of  ex- 
plicitness.     Why  did  you  not  say,  analogy 
and  inference?    Shocking!    What!    give  up 
the  cause  at  once!  But  what,  I  say  again,  is 
this  third  thing?   Is  Mr.  B.  afraid  of  telling? 
I  wish,  however,  he  would  write  again,  and 
say  in  plain  terms  what  it  is.     Is  it  what  yon 
speak  of  in  the  latter  part  of  the  defence,  viz. 
"  that  women  have  the  same  pre-requisites  as 
men,  and  that  male  and  female  are  one  in 
Christ?'^    Very  good. — Proceed. — Therefore 
— I  say,  go  on,  do  not   be  afraid,  this  will 
bring  you  safe  to  your  conclusion;  for  it  is 
only  analogy  and  inference.     Inference  and 
analogy !   and  upon  a  positive  institute  too !  I 
cannot  bear  the  terms;  I  would  much  rather 
call  them  lexicographers  and  common  sense; 
for  were  I  to  call  them  inference  and  analogy, 
it  would  ruin  my  whole  book.     It  is  very 
true  Mr.  B.;  but  at  the  same  time,  is  it  not 


INFANT    BAPTISM,  27 

better  your  book  should  be  ruined  by  plain 
dealing,  than  that  your  reputation  should 
seem  to  be  stained  by  acting  an  artful  part? 
But  after  all,  here  is  a  third  thing  wanting 
to  settle  the  meaning  of  this  ambiguous 
word.  And  what  does  it  signify  by  what 
name  we  call  this  third  thing  ?  For  whe- 
ther we  name  it  analogy,  or  inference,  or 
lexicographer,  or  common  sense  (which 
two  last  are  Mr.  B.'s  names,  as  he  could 
not  bear  the  others  on  a  positive  institute,) 
it  comes  still  to  the  same  thing;  it  shows 
that  this  is  no  explicit  word  for  females,  and 
consequently,  as  there  is  no  other,  this  argu- 
ment is  ruined. 

What  I  have  now  animadverted  upon  is 
all  Mr.  B.  says,  that  can  even  pretend  to 
evince  an  explicit  warrant.  But  since  the 
whole  of  it,  upon  his  principles,  is  as  curious 
a  defence  of  female  right  to  the  Lord's  table 
as  ever  was  presented  to  the  public,  I  will 
pay  him  the  compliment  of  surveying  it,  and 
taking  it  to  pieces,  in  due  time  and  place. 
In  the  mean  time  I  do  not  blame  Mr.  B.  for 
not  being  able  to  produce  an  explicit  warrant 
for  women;  it  is  what  no  man  is  able  to  do; 
but  I  do  blame  him  for  using  such  reasoning 
as  he  has  done,  and  then  passing  it  upon  the 
public  under  the  colour  of  explicit  proof. 

It  is  a  common  opinion  that  Baptists  and 
Psedobaptists  do  reason  differently  on  posi- 
tive institutes;  that  the  former  invariably  in- 
sist upon  express  proof,  while  the  latter  ad- 
mit the  force  of  inferential  reasoning.     It  is 


28 


ARGUMENTS   AGAINST 


true  they  profess  to  reason  differently,  and 
they  actually  do  sometimes;  but  then  it  is 
only  according  to  the  mood  they  may  be  in, 
and  the  matter  they  may  have  in  hand.  Let 
the  matter  of  debate  be  a  little  varied,  and 
they  reason  on  positive  institutes  precisely  in 
the  same  way. 

I  have  taken  the  liberty  in  time  past,  to 
ask  Psedobaptists  why  they  baptized  their 
infants?  One  has  told  me,  that  infants  were 
circumcised,  and  therefore  should  now  be 
baptized;  inferring  their  baptism  from  cir- 
cumcision. Another  has  told  me,  that  our 
Lord  took  infants  into  his  arms,  and  blessed 
them,  and  said  they  were  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;  so  inferring  their  baptism  from  the 
language  and  conduct  of  Christ,  At  hear- 
ing this,  the  Baptists  smile,  and  think  it  very 
foolish  reasoning. 

I  have  also  taken  the  liberty  to  ask  Bap- 
tists, why  they  admitted  women  to  the  Lord's 
table?  One  informed  me  that  women  were 
partakers  of  the  grace  of  God;  inferring  their 
right  to  communicate  from  their  grace.  An- 
other told  me,  that  women  had  been  baptiz- 
ed; and  inferred  their  right  to  the  supper 
from  their  baptism.  A  third  gave  me  to  un- 
derstand, that  women  did  eat  of  the  paschal 
lamb,  and  from  thence  inferred  their  right  to 
the  Lord's  table.  A  fourth  told  me  that 
women  were  creatures  of  God  as  well  as 
men;  and  so  inferred  their  right  from  their 
creation.  These  Baptists  did  all  infer,  and, 
as  Mr.  B.  says  of  Paedobaptists,  not  feeling 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


29 


the  ground  on  which  they  stood,  they  agreed 
in  one  conchision,  but  did  not  agree  in  the 
premises  from  which  it  should  be  drawn. 

It  may  perhaps  be  said,  that  these  persons 
did  not  possess  logical  exactness;  that  they 
were  not  aware  of  the  impropriety  of  de- 
manding plain,  express,  unequivocal  proof; 
and  then,  as  it  suited  their  convenience,  fly- 
ing  directly  to   inference,   implication,   and 
analogy;   and  that   too   on  a  positive  ordi- 
nance.   I  grant  they  were  plain  persons,  and 
did  not  see  the  inconsistency  of  this  conduct. 
Well,  we   will  betake  ourselves  to  men  of 
skill,  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with  logi- 
cal precision;  and  then  let  us  see  how  they 
act  in  this  business.    What  think  you  of  Mr. 
Booth,  as  a  man  of  erudition  and  logical  at- 
tainment?  Does  Mr.  B.,  say  you,  employ  in- 
ferential reasoning  on   a  positive  institute? 
Nothing  in  the  world  more  certain.     What! 
Mr.  B.;  he  who  has  written  so  many  hun- 
dred pages  with  a  view  to  expose  it?    Yes, 
that  identical  Mr.  B.  to  the  reproach  of  all 
consistency,  does,  in  that  very  work,  when 
sad  necessity  compels,  even  deal  in  this  same 
inferential  reasoning.     I  will   not   evidence 
this  now,  since  I  have  promised  to  notice  his 
whole  defence  of  women  in  a  more  proper 
place. 

All  I  am  concerned  to  do  in  this  place,  is 
to  show  that  this  argument  of  the  Baptists  is 
false.  The  argument  is  this:  "  A  person  who 
has  a  right  to  a  positive  institute,  must  be 
expressly  mentioned   as  having   that  right; 


30 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 


but  infants  are  not  so  mentioned,  &c.''  That 
the  argument  is  false,  appears  from  these 
facts : 

I.  The  Scriptures  do  not  countenance  it. 
For  as  it  is  not  proved  by  any  part  of  the 
word  of  God,  being  neither  set  down  in  the 
words,  nor  yet  in  the  sense  of  holy  writ,  and 
therefore  a  fiction,  invented  by  men  to  sup- 
port a  particular  opinion;  so  it  stands  di- 
rectly against  God's  holy  word.  And  this  is 
evident  from  hence;  that  though  women  are 
expressly  said  to  have  been  baptized,  they 
are  never  said  to  have  received  the  Lord's 
supper.  The  Scriptures,  therefore,  in  plain 
opposition  to  this  false  argument,  leave  us 
to  conclude  their  right  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per from  their  baptism,  together  with  other 
grounds.  Thus  it  has  no  support  from  Scrip- 
ture. 

IL  The  Baptists  themselves  do  not  coun- 
tenance it;  for  though  they  have  written 
whole  books  on  the  strength  of  it,  they  are 
compelled  to  desert  it,  and  do  desert  it,  the 
moment  the  subject  is  varied.  For  after  they 
have  vapoured  ever  so  long,  and  ever  so  loud, 
about  "  no  express  law — no  explicit  warrant 
for  infant  baptism — infant  baptism  is  no  where 
mentioned  in  Scripture;"  let  any  one  put  it 
upon  them  to  prove  the  right  of  women  to 
the  supper,  and  I  will  answer  for  it  he  will 
hear  no  more  of  express  law  on  that  head. 
He  will  find  that  all  this  hollow  sound  which 
signifies  nothing,  will  die  away,  and  each 
will  shift  for  himself  the  best  way  he  can, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  31 

and  fly  for  aid  to  analogy  and  inference. 
Women,  say  they,  may  be  gracious — Wo- 
men were  baptized — Women  did  eat  of  the 
paschal  lamb — Women  are  creatures  of  God, 
as  well  as  men  and  therefore — Therefore 
what?  Why  therefore  they  should  receive 
the  Lord's  supper.  What  now  has  become 
of  their  express  law?  It  is  deserted,  com- 
pletely deserted;  nor  will  they  adopt  it  again 
till  infant  baptism  is  resumed.  The  Baptists, 
therefore,  do  not  countenance  it. 

III.  Mr.  Booth  himself  does  not  counten- 
ance it;  I  mean,  not  always  countenance  it. 
For  though  he  has  demanded  explicit  proof 
for  infant  baptism,  and  has  contended  that  if 
such  proof  cannot  be  adduced,  the  baptism 
of  infants  must  be  wrong,  yet,  when  he 
comes  to  produce  an  explicit  warrant  for  fe- 
male communion,  he  is  content:  Nay,  stop, 
I  cannot  say  he  is  content,  but  he  is  compel- 
led to  fly  to  presuming,  to  implication,  to 
analogy,  to  inference,  to  make  out  an  ex- 
plicit warrant!  All  this  we  engage  to  prove, 
and  to  make  a  proper  use  of  it  in  the  sequel. 
And  I  cannot  help  observing,  that  if  female 
communion  cannot  be  supported  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  this  argument,  how  idle  a  thing  it  is 
to  forge  a  rule  to  operate  against  infants 
only. 

Finally,  as  this  argument  militates  against 
female  communion,  as  well  as  infant  bap- 
tism, they  must  either  both  be  wrong,  or  the 
argument  itself  must  be  false.  That  the  ar- 
gument is  false,  is  sufficiently  evident,  as  it 


32 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 


not  only  has  no  support  from  Scripture,  but 
lies  directly  against  it;  and  from  what  I  have 
observed,  in  many  recent  conversations,  I  do 
not  suppose  there  is  a  single  Baptist  in  the 
kingdom  that  will  even  dare  to  stick  to  it. 
For  after  they  had  urged  this  argument  upon 
me,  I  have  turned  the  question  from  infant 
baptism  to  female  communion,  and  I  do  not 
recollect  one,  either  minister  or  private  per- 
son, but  has,  in  little  more  than  a  quarter  of 
an   hour,  entirely  given  up  the   argument. 
And  if  Mr.  B.  should  think  proper  to  take 
up  his  pen  once  more  on  this  subject,  I  hfive 
not  a  doubt  but  I  should  be  able  to  compel 
even  him,  as  well  as  many  of  his  brethren, 
to  relinquish  it  as  a  false  argument;   and  I 
hope  he  will  take  up  his  pen  once  again, and 
vindicate  his  defence  of  female  communion. 
1  have  been  the  longer  on  this  argument, 
because  as  it  is  very  frequently  urged,  so  it 
contains  precisely   one  iialf  of   the   Baptist 
strength.     This  argument,  therefore,   being 
destroyed,  just  half  their  strength   is  gone. 
And  if  any  one  should  be  inclined  to  cry  out, 
*'  There  is  no  explicit  example — there  is  no 
express   law  for   infant   baptism,  &c.'^  any 
person  has  it  in  his  power  to  quiet  him  al- 
most in  an  instant,  should  he  only  ask  him  to 
produce   his  explicit  law,   for  female  com- 
munion.   Thus  much  for  this  bad  argument; 
and  I  pass  to  the  other. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


ARGUMENT   II. 


33 


The  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  as  requisite 
to  baptism  ;  but  as  infants  cannot  have  these,  they  are 
not  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  Infants,  say  the  Bap- 
tists, cannot  beheve,  cannot  repent ;  and  none  should  be 
baptized  without  faith,  &,c. 

The  most  expeditious  way  of  destroying  this 
argument,  would  be  this.  They  say  the  Scrip- 
tures require  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to 
baptism.  I  ask,  Of  whom  ?  The  answer  must 
be,  Of  adults;  for  the  Scriptures  never  re- 
quire them  of  infants,  m  order  to  any  thing. 
Then  frame  the  argument  thus: — The  Scrip- 
tures require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults, 
in  order  to  baptism.  Now  you  see  infants  are 
gone,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  argu- 
ment; or  if  they  must  be  brought  in,  the  ar- 
gument will  run  thus: — The  Scriptures  re- 
quire faith  and  repentance  of  adults,  in  or- 
der to  baptism;  but  as  infants  cannot  have 
these,  they  are  unfit  subjects  of  that  ordi- 
nance. Now  it  is  a  glaring  sophism;  with 
adults  in  one  proposition,  and  infants  in  the 
other.  Were  I  only  to  leave  the  argument 
thus,  and  say  no  more  upon  it,  it  would  not 
be  possible  to  save  it  from  destruction;  but 
since  it  is  the  only  remaining  half  of  the  Bap- 
tist strength,  I  will  examine  it  more  at  large. 
In  order  to  judge  of  the  real  worth  of  an 
argument,  I  lay  down  this  rule:  ^' Every  ar- 
gument that  will  prove  against  an  evident 
truth;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  every  ar- 
gument which  will  support  a  falsehood,  is 
4 


34 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 


clearly  a  bad  argument."  This  rule  is  self- 
evident;  for  that  must  needs  be  false,  which 
tends  to  prove  a  falsehood. 

I  will  proceed  by  this  rule,  and  attempt  to 
show,  I.  That  this  argument  is  entirely  fal- 
lacious. II.  Point  out  wherein  its  fallacy 
consists. 

I.  Of  the  fallacy  of  this  argument.  The 
principle  of  it  is,  that  infants  are  excluded 
from  baptism,  because  something  is  said  of 
baptism  which  will  not  agree  to  infants.  To 
see  therefore  the  tendency  of  this  argument, 
whether  it  will  prove  on  the  side  of  truth 
or  error,  I  will  try  its  operation  on  these  four 
subjects. 

1.  On  the  circumcision  of  infants.  That 
infants  were  circumcised,  is  a  fact.  That 
they  were  circumcised  by  the  express  com- 
mand of  God,  is  a  proof  of  right.  They  were 
actually  circumcised,  and  it  was  right  they 
should  be  so.  Therefore,that  they  were  proper 
subjects  of  that  institute,  is  an  evident  truth. 
Now  on  this  truth  I  mean  to  try  the  argu- 
ment, to  see  if  it  will  prove  for  or  against  it. 

Circumcision,  as  it  was  a  solemn  entering 
into  the  church  of  God,  did  fix  an  obligation 
on  the  circumcised,  to  conform  to  the  laws 
and  ordinances  of  that  church.  Hence  that 
speech,  Acts  xv.  24.  "Ye  must  be  circum- 
cised, and  keep  the  law;"  which  would  have 
been  just,  if  circumcision  had  not  been  abol- 
ished. The  apostle  says,  Gal.  v.  3.  "Every 
man  who  is  circumcised,  is  a  debtor  to  do 
the  whole  law."     His  meaning  is,  if  circum- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  35 

cision  be  in  force,  so  must  its  obligation  too. 
And  Rom.  ii.  25,  he  says,  "  Circumcision  pro- 
fiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law;  but,  if  thou  be  a 
breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made 
uncircumcision."  The  sum  of  this  is,  he  that 
was  circumcised  became  a  debtor;  if  he  kept 
the  law  to  which  he  was  bound,  his  circum- 
cision would  profit;  but  if  he  violated  it,  his 
circumcision  became  a  nulhty. 

Now  I  ask.  Did  it  agree  to  an  infant  to 
become  a  debtor?  Did  it  agree  to  an  infant 
to  break  or  keep  the  law?  Mr.  Booth  shall 
answer  both.  To  the  first  he  says,  vol.  ii. 
page  151,  "Infants  are  not  capable  of  con- 
tracting either  with  God  or  man.  That,  to 
suppose  any  such  thing,  insults  the  under- 
standing and  feelings  of  mankind.  For,  as 
Bishop  Sanderson  observes,  In  personal  ob- 
ligations no  man  is  bound  without  his  own 
consent.'^  To  the  others  he  answers,  "  The 
minds  of  mere  infants  are  not  capable  of 
comparing  their  own  conduct  with  the  rule 
of  duty:  they  have,  properly  speaking,  no 
conscience  at  all."  Infants  therefore  could 
not  become  debtors;  they  could  not  keep  the 
law.  Very  well.  Then  it  is  clear  there  was 
something  said  of  circumcision,  which  did 
no  more  agree  to  infants,  than  if  it  had  been 
said.  Repent,  and  be  baptized. 

In  this  respect,  baptism  and  circumcision 
are  upon  a  level;  for  there  is  something  said 
concerning  both,  which  will  by  no  means 
agree  to  infants.  Infants,  on  the  one  hand, 
can  neither  believe  nor  repent;  and  these  are 


36 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 


connected  with  baptism;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  infants  cannot  become  debtors,  they 
cannot  keep  the  law;  and  these  are  connect- 
ed with  circumcision.  And  then  if  we  say, 
as  the  Baptists  do,  that  infants,  since  they 
cannot  beUeve  or  repent,  must  not  be  bap- 
tized, because  faith  and  repentance  are  con- 
nected with  baptism;  we  must  say  hkewise, 
infants  cannot  become  debtors,  they  cannot 
keep  the  law;  and  because  these  are  connect- 
ed with  circumcision,  they  must  not  be  cir- 
cumcised. And  then  it  follows,  that  this  argu- 
ment, by  proving  against  a  known  truth, 
appears  a  fallacious  argument. 

But  it  may  be  said,  circumcision  of  in- 
fants was  commanded  of  God,  and  was  there- 
fore certainly  right.  To  this  I  answer,  that 
that  is  the  very  principle  on  which  I  pro- 
ceed, and  it  is  that  very  thing  which  proves 
fatal  to  this  argument;  for  the  circumcision 
of  infants  being  an  evident  truth,  and  the  ar- 
gument before  us  proving  against  it,  it  is  a 
plain  demonstration  of  its  absurdity  and  fal- 
lacy. Now  if  this  argument  be  such,  that  had 
it  been  used  by  a  Jew  in  the  land  of  Canaan, 
it  would  have  proved  against  an  ordinance 
of  God,  I  would  fain  know,  if  its  nature  can 
in  any  measure  be  changed,  merely  on  its 
being  used  by  a  Baptist,  and  in  a  different 
climate?    I  proceed  to  try  it, 

2.  On  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
baptism  of  Christ  is  a  known  fact;  and  that  he 
was  a  fit  subject,  is  an  acknowledged  truth. 
It  is  Ukewise  certain,  that,  as  he  was  no  sin- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  37 

ner,  he  could  have  no  repentance;  and  since 
he  needed  no  salvation  from  sin,  he  conld 
not  have  the  faith  of  God's  elect;  that  is,  he 
could  not  have  that  faith  which  the  Scrip- 
tures require  for  baptism. 

Now  the  tendency  of  this  argument  being 
to  prove,  that  those  who  cannot  have  faith 
and  repentance  are  unfit  subjects  of  bap- 
tism; and  Scripture  informing  us  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  was  baptized,  who  could  have 
neither,  the  dilemma  therefore  will  be  this; 
either  the  baptism  of  Christ  was  wrong,  or 
else  this  argument  is  false.  It  is  impossible 
to  suppose  the  first,  that  the  baptism  of  Christ 
was  wrong;  we  must  therefore  affirm  the  last, 
that  this  argument  is  false :  because  that  argu- 
ment must  be  false  which  proves  against  an 
evident  truth. 

Again,  when  it  is  said  in  the  argument, 
that  the  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repent- 
ance, in  order  to  baptism;  I  ask.  Do  they  re- 
quire them  of  all,  or  of  some  only?  If  it  be 
said,  they  are  required  of  all;  then,  as  before 
noted,  it  proves  against  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
Christ.  If  it  be  said,  they  require  them  of 
some  only;  then  the  argument  has  no  force: 
for,  in  that  case,  it  would  run  thus — Faith 
and  repentance  are  required  only  of  some, 
in  order  to  baptism;  and  now  the  conse- 
quence will  be,  that  some  may  be  baptized 
without  them.  And  nothing  would  remain 
then,  but  that  it  be  determined,  who  should 
be  baptized  without  faith,  and  who  with. 

View  it  which  way  we  will,  the  argument 


38 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 


is  miserably  bad.  The  Baptists,  however, 
in  this  case,  fly  to  its  relief  by  saying,  "  that 
Jesus  Christ,  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  his 
person,  was  exempted  from  this  rule.'^  How 
this  will  mend  the  matter,  I  see  not;  for  now 
it  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  rule  which  will 
admit  of  exception.  And  then  I  have  only 
to  ask,  How  many  exceptions  does  it  admit, 
and  what  are  they  ?  Neither  would  it-  be 
better  to  say,  that  Christ  was  baptized,  to  set 
us  an  example.  For  then  we  should  have 
an  example  of  one,  who,  being  incapable  of 
faith  and  repentance,  was  baptized  without 
them.  And  in  this  view,  his  example  will 
weigh  in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  I  will 
try  it  again, 

3.  On  the  salvation  of  infants.  That  in- 
fants may  be  the  subjects  of  salvation  is  uni- 
versally admitted;  that  those,  who  die  in  in- 
fancy, are  actually  glorified,  is  also  granted; 
and  yet  there  is  something  said  concerning 
salvation,  which  will  by  no  means  agree  to 
infants — "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved; 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,'^  &c. 

What  shall  we  say  in  this  case?  Why, 
the  same  as  before.  If  infants  must  not  be 
baptized,  because  something  is  said  of  bap- 
tism, which  does  not  agree  to  infants;  then, 
by  the  same  rule,  infants  must  not  be  saved, 
because  something  is  said  of  salvation,  which 
does  not  agree  to  infants.  And  then,  the  same 
consequence  again  follows,  that  this  argu- 
ment, by  proving  against  an  acknowledged 
truth,  proves  itself  to  be  fallacious. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


39 


And  now,  since  it  falls  in  with  my  present 
design,  and  may  serve  to  relieve  and  inform 
the  reader,!  will  present  him  with  two  speci- 
mens of  reasoning  on  the  same  text;  one  of 
which  conchides  against  infant  baptism,  and 
the  other  for  it.  The  reader  may  adopt  that 
which  pleases  him  best. 

The  first  specimen  shall  be  that  of  Mr.  B. 
vol.  ii.  page  309,  where  he  adopts  the  remark 
of  Mr.  Chambers:  "What  they  [the  German 
Baptists]  chiefly  supported  their  great  doc- 
trine on,  was  those  words  of  our  Saviour: 
'  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved.'  As  none  but  adults  are  capable  of 
believing,  they  argued,  *  that  no  others  are 
capable  of  baptism.'  "  If  these  had  gone  one 
step  further,  their  argument  would  have  been 
lost:  e.  g.  As  none  but  adults  are  capable  of 
believing,  none  but  adults  are  capable  of  be- 
ing saved.  This  with  the  Baptists  is  a  fa- 
vourite text;  and  they  argue  upon  it  from 
the  order  of  the  words.  If,  say  they,  faith 
goes  before  baptism;  then  infants  must  not 
be  baptized,  because  they  have  no  faith. 

The  other  is  that  of  Dr.  Walker,  out  of  his 
Modest  Plea,  page  179.  His  words  are  these: 
"  If  none  must  be  baptized  but  he  that  be- 
lieves, because  believing  is  set  first;  then  none 
must  be  saved  but  he  that  is  baptized,  be- 
cause baptizing  is  set  first.  And  then,  what 
better  argument  can  be  made  for  infant  bap- 
tism ?  They  must  be  baptized  if  we  will  have 
them  saved;  because  they  cannot  be  saved 
without  being  baptized;  for  baptizing  goes 


40 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 


before  saving.  And  yet  from  the  sanae  text, 
and  by  the  same  way  of  arguing,  it  may  be 
proved,  that  no  infants  are  saved,  but  those 
that  believe;  because  believing  is  set  before 
saving:  And  not  only  so,  but  whereas  it  is 
not  said,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  not  be 
baptized;  it  is  said,  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned.'^ 

The  difference  between  the  reasoning  of 
these  two,  lies  in  this:  The  Baptists  reason  on 
apartof  the  text  only,and  the  Doctor  reasoned 
on  the  whole.  And  to  show  how  miserably 
fallacious  the  reasoning  of  the  Baptists  is,  I 
will  lay  down  a  plan  of  their  logic  on  this  text, 
which  will  produce  more  conclusions  than 
there  are  principal  words  in  that  part  of  the 
verse.  The  place  is,  Mark  xvi.  16.  "  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
Now  as  the  Baptists  reason  from  the  order 
of  the  words,  I  will  mark  them  with  figures, 
^believeth — ^'Q^ptized — ^saved. 

The  logic  is  as  follows:  Take  the  first  and 
second,  believeth — baptized — and  say  with 
the  Baptists — 

1.  None  are  to  be  baptized  but  such  as 
believe,  because  believing  must  be  before 
baptizing.—"'  ^Believeth"— "  ^Baptized." 

This  will  conclude  against  infant  bap- 
tism. 

Next  take  the  first  and  third — believeth — 
saved — and  say  in  the  same  way: 

2.  None  are  to  be  saved,  but  such  as  be- 
lieve, because  believing  must  be  before  sav- 
in?.— "  ^Believeth''— "  ^saved." 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  41 

This  concludes  against  infant  salvation. 
Now  take  the  second  and  third — baptized 
— saved — and  argue  in  the  same  manner: 

3.  None  are  to  be  saved,  but  such  as  are 
baptized,  because  baptizing  must  go  before 
saving. — "  ^Baptized" — "  ^saved.^' 

This  will  conclude  on  the  side  of  infant 
baptism,they  must  be  baptized,  or  they  can- 
not be  saved.     As  Dr.  Walker  reasons. 

Lastly, take  all  three — believeth — baptized 
— saved — and  say: 

4.  None  are  to  be  saved  but  such  as  be- 
lieve and  are  baptized,  because  believing  and 
baptizing  must  be  before  saving — "^Believ- 
eth"—"^baptized''—"  \saved." 

This  concludes  against  the  salvation  of  be- 
lievers in  Jesus  Christ,  if  they  have  not  been 
baptized.  And  so  upon  the  principle  of  the 
Baptists,  it  concludes  against  the  salvation  of 
all  Paedobaptists. 

All  these  conclusions,  arising  from  the 
same  way  of  reasoning,  may  serve  as  a 
specimen  to  show  the  fallacious  mode  of 
arguing  against  infant  baptism,  adopted  by 
the  Baptists. 

Let  it  be  tried  once  more, 

4.  On  the  temporal  subsistence  of  infants. 
As  the  reader  may  perceive  the  drift  of  the 
reasoning,  on  these  instances,  I  will  use  but 
few  words  on  the  present  one.  Now  that  in- 
fants should  be  supported,  not  only  Scripture, 
but  nature  itself  teaches.  And  yet,  if  we 
form  the  Baptist  argument,  on  a  few  places 
of  Scripture,  it  may  be  proved,  in  opposition 


42 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 


to  Nature  and  Scripture  both,  that  infants 
should  actually  be  left  to  starve. 

We  have  nothing  to  do  but  mention  the 
texts,  and  apply  their  reasoning  to  them. 
Isaiah  i.  19,  "  If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient, 
ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land."  2  Thess. 
iii.  10.  "If  any  would  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat."  Take  the  first,  and  say  with 
the  Baptist  in  another  case:  Willingness  and 
obedience  are  required  of  those  who  are  to 
eat  the  good  of  the  land;  but  since  infants 
can  neither  will  nor  obey,  they  must  not  eat 
the  good  of  the  land.  In  the  same  way  let 
the  other  be  taken:  He  that  will  not  work, 
neither  shall  he  eat;  infants  cannot  will  to 
work,  then  infants  must  riot  eat. 

This  argument,  in  whatever  way  it  is  view- 
ed, proves  against  the  truth.  Is  it  a  truth, 
that  infants  should  subsist?  This  argument 
proves  against  it.  Is  it  a  truth,  that  infants 
may  be  saved?  This  argument  will  prove 
the  contrary.  Was  Christ  rightly  baptized  ? 
According  to  this  argument  it  could  not  be. 
Were  infants  proper  subjects  of  circumcision? 
This  argument  will  prove  they  were  not. 
Then,  if  it  invariably  support  a  falsehood,  we 
are  compelled  to  say  it  is  a  false  argument. 

II.  I  will  point  out  wherein  this  fallacy 
consists.  As  this  argument,  notwithstanding 
it  is  false,  is  used  by  the  Baptists  in  general, 
both  learned  and  unlearned,  I  will  attempt 
to  lay  open  its  fallacy;  and  thereby  put  those 
persons  upon  their  guard,  who  may  be  in 
danger  of  being  seduced  by  it.  The  judicious 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


43 


reader  may  have  observed,  that  I  slightly 
hinted  at  the  outset,  wherein  its  fauU  consist- 
ed; but  to  make  it  yet  more  evident  what 
that  fault  is,  of  which  it  is  guilty,  I  will  take 
the  liberty  of  saying  a  few  words  more. 

That  particular  rule,  against  which  this 
argument  offends,  is  this:  '^Non  debet  plus 
esse  in  conclusione  quani  erat  in  premissis. 
Ratio  manifesta  est,  quia  conclusio  educen- 
da  est  ex  premissis.  That  is,  "There  should 
not  be  more  in  the  conclusion  than  was  in 
the  premises.  The  reason  is  plain,  because 
the  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  pre- 
mises.'^ We  will  try  to  make  this  plain,  by 
examples  both  of  true  and  false  reasoning. 

1.  In  the  Baptist  way  of  reasoning.  When 
the  Scriptures  say,  ''  Repent  and  be  bapti- 
zed;" and,  "  If  thou  believest  thou  mayest," 
&:c.  they  address  only  sinful  adults;  and  then, 
an  argument  formed  upon  them  should  reach 
no  further  than  ad  ults  of  the  same  description. 
But  the  Baptists  form  their  fallacious  argu- 
ment on  these  passages,  by  bringing  infants 
into  the  conclusion,  who,  as  they  are  not  ad- 
dressed, are  not  at  all  concerned  in  the  pre- 
mises. This  will  appear  plain  by  three  in- 
stances on  the  Baptist  plan. 

The  Baptist  argument  runs  thus:  The  Scrip- 
tures require  faith  and  repentance  in  order 
to  baptism;  but  infants  have  not  faith  and 
repentance;  therefore  they  are  not  to  be  bap- 
tized. Now  as  the  Scriptures  require  faith 
and  repentance  only  of  adults,  we  must  place 
that  word  in  the  argument,  and  then  it  will 


44  ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 

Stand  in  this  form:  The  Scriptures  require 
faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in  order  to 
baptism;  but  infants  cannot  have  these: 
Therefore  infants  are  not  fit  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. In  the  same  way,  we  may  form  the 
two  following  instances,  viz.  The  Scriptures 
require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in  order 
to  salvation;  but  infants  cannot  have  these: 
Therefore  infants  cannot  be  saved.  Again, 
He  [an  adult]  who  will  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat;  but  an  infant  cannot  will  to 
work,  therefore  an  infant  should  not  eat.  The 
reader  may  perceive,  that  by  placing  the 
word  adults  in  one  proposition,  and  infants 
in  the  other,  (which  makes  it  a  sophism,) 
there  are  three  things  proved  in  the  same 
way,  ?;2z.  That  infants  cannot  be  saved — that 
infants  should  not  eat — that  infants  should 
not  be  baptized.  And  so,  for  the  same  reason, 
that  an  infant  cannot  be  saved,  that  an  infant 
should  not  eat;  it  will  follow,  that  an  infant 
should  not  be  baptized.  For  all  these  are 
equally  true,  and  supported  by  the  same 
reasoning.  And  it  is  in  the  same  way,  that 
this  argument  proves  against  the  baptism  of 
Christ,  and  the  circumcision  of  infants.  We 
will  now  view  these  three  instances, 

2.  In  the  Paidobaptist  way  of  reasoning. 
We  will  place  the  same  word  in  each  propo- 
sition, thus:  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and 
repentance  of  adults  in  order  to  baptism;  but 
some  adults  have  no  faith,  no  repentance; 
therefore  some  adults  are  not  to  be  baptized. 
Again,  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and  re- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  45 

pentance  of  aduUs  in  order  to  salvation;  but 
some  adults  do  not  believe  nor  repent:  there- 
fore some  adults  will  not  be  saved.  Once 
more — He  [an  adult]  who  will  not  work, 
neither  should  he  eat;  but  some  adult  will 
not  work;  therefore  some  adult  should  not 
eat.  Now  by  placing  the  word  adult  in  each 
proposition,  without  which  it  would  be  a  so- 
phistical argument,  the  reader  may  see,  that 
as  infants  can  have  no  place  in  either,  there 
is  nothing  to  forbid  their  support,  their  sal- 
vation, or  their  baptism.  They  only  prove 
that  an  idle  adult  should  not  be  supported; 
that  an  impenitent  adult  will  not  be  saved; 
and,  that  he  has  no  right  at  all  to  baptism. 

Once  more — As  I  have  nothing  in  view, 
so  much  as  truth,  I  have  a  great  desire  to 
make  this  matter  plain  to  the  meanest  capa- 
city. For  if  I  am  clearly  understood  in  this 
part,  my  end  on  the  present  argument  is  at- 
tained; and  what  I  have  before  advanced 
upon  it  will  be,  in  a  great  measure,  useless. 
The  reader,  therefore,  is  desired  to  observe, 
that  the  design  of  this  argument  is  to  conclude 
against  the  baptism  of  infants.  Then,  as  in- 
fants are  to  be  in  the  conclusion,  they  must 
also  be  in  the  premises;  for  the  rule  says, 
^'  there  should  not  be  more  in  the  conclusion 
than  was  in  the  premises;  because  the  con- 
clusion is  to  be  drawn  from  the  premises.'^ 

Now  to  make  the  argument  of  the  Baptists 
consistent  with  itself,  we  must  place  infants' 
in  the  premises  as  well  as  in  the  conclusion; 
and  then  the  argument  will  stand  thus:  The 


46  ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 

Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  of  in- 
fants in  order  to  baptism;  but  infants  have 
not  faith,  &c.;  therefore  infants  are  not  to  be 
baptized.  The  reader  may  discern  an  agree- 
ment, in  the  parts  of  the  argument,  with  each 
other;  it  has  infants  in  each  part,  as  well  in 
the  premises,  as  in  the  conclusion.  But  then, 
the  fallacy  of  it  is  more  strikingly  evident 
than  before:  for  the  error,  which  before  crept 
into  the  middle,  does  here  stand  in  front;  it 
is  in  this  proposition,  the  Scriptures  require 
faith  and  repentance  of  infants  in  order  to 
baptism,  which  is  not  true;  for  infants  are 
never  required  to  repent  or  believe,  in  order 
either  to  baptism  or  salvation.  Whereas 
before,  when  it  was  said  the  Scriptures  re- 
quire faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in  order 
to  baptism;  but  infants  have  not  faith,  &c., 
the  error  consisted  in  putting  in  the  word 
"  infants,"  who  have  no  concern  at  all  in  the 
requirement. 

By  placing  one  thing  in  the  premises,  and 
another  in  the  conclusion,  which  is  done  by 
the  Baptists,  in  this  argument,  we  may  be 
able  to  evince  any  absurdity,  however  glar- 
ing. This  being  the  manner  of  the  Baptist 
argument,  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  take 
off  its  force  against  infants,  but  to  make  the 
premises  and  conclusion  to  correspond  with 
each  other.  That  is,  while  it  continues  to  be 
a  sophism,  it  proves  against  infants;  but  it 
ceases  to  prove  against  them,  as  soon  as  it 
is  made  a  good  argument,  e.  g.  Faith  and 
repentance  are  required  of  adults  in  order  to 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


47 


baptism;  but  infants  have  not  these:  There- 
fore infants  are  not  to  be  baptized.  This  is 
nothing  more  than  a  pure  sophism,  and,  as 
such,  il  conchides  against  infants;  but  all  its 
force  against  infants  is  set  aside  by  making 
it  good,  thus:  Faith  and  repentance  are  re- 
quired in  adults  in  order  to  baptism;  but 
some  adults  have  not  faith  and  repentance: 
Therefore  some  adults  are  not  to  be  bap- 
tized. The  reader  may  see,  that  now  it  is  a 
fair  argument,  all  its  force  against  infants  is 
gone. 

Having  said  thus  much  on  the  fallacy  of 
this  argument,  I  shall  only  add  one  specimen 
of  its  mode  of  operation;  and  that  is  a  speci- 
men, in  which  it  will  conclude  two  contrary 
ways,  on  one  place  of  Scripture,  Rom.  ii.  25, 
''  For  circumcision  verily  profiteth,if  thou  keep 
the  law;  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law, 
thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircumcision." 

Now  the  Baptist  argument,  on  the  first 
member  of  this  text,  will  operate  thus:  Cir- 
cumcision verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the 
law;  but  infants  could  not  keep  the  law: 
Therefore  their  circumcision  must  be  unpro- 
fitable, that  is,  as  no  circumcision,  a  mere 
nullity;  and  this  reflects  on  the  wisdom  of 
God.  But  if  we  form  the  same  argument  on 
the  other  member,  it  will  be  no  nullity  nei- 
ther, for  thus  it  will  run:  If  thou  be  a  breaker 
of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncir- 
cumcision:  But  infants  could  not  break  the 
law;  therefore  their  circumcision  could  not 
be  made  uncircumcision,  i.  e.  a  nullity.   Such 


48  ARGUMENTS    AGAINST 

is  this  Baptist  argument,  that  it  will  prove 
infant  circumcision  to  be  something  or  no- 
thing, according  to  that  part  of  the  text  on 
which  it  is  formed;  and  it  is  therefore  evi- 
dently no  more  than  a  sophism. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  make  the  reader 
see,  not  only  that  this  argument  is  false,  but 
wherein  that  fallacy  consists.  That  it  is 
false,  appears  in  this,  that  in  every  instance 
it  opposes  a  known  truth;  it  opposes  the  cir- 
cumcision of  infants — the  baptism  of  Jesus 
Christ — the  salvation  of  infants — and,  their 
temporal  subsistence.  The  nature  of  the 
fallacy  is  the  placing  of  adults  in  the  pre- 
mises, and  infants  in  the  conclusion;  which 
any  person,  who  has  the  least  knowledge  of 
the  art  of  reasoning,  must  see  instantly  to  be 
repugnant  to  the  laws  of  truth.  If  the  method 
I  have  taken  to  show  wherein  the  fault  con- 
sists, should  not  be  familiar  to  any  reader,  it 
is  possible  he  may  not  apprehend  me;  if  so, 
I  would  advise  him  to  read  it  repeatedly,  and 
with  serious  attention;  for  I  am  not  without 
hope,  that  even  the  most  common  capacity, 
with  due  attention,  will  clearly  comprehend 
my  meaning.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  no 
doubt,  but  many  will  readily  enter  into  the 
method,  and  see  what  a  fallacious  argument 
is  made  use  of  to  support  an  opinion,  I  am 
compelled  to  desert. 

These  two  arguments  being  taken  away, 
a  Baptist  has  nothing  left  to  place  against  in- 
fant baptism.  I  have  not  met  with  a  single 
person,  who,  when  desired  to  produce  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


49 


strongest  arguments  against  infants,  could 
advance  any  thing  more  than  what  is  con- 
tained in  these  two.  While  I  thought  it 
right  to  oppose  the  baptism  of  infants,  I 
made  use  of  them  against  it;  but  when  they 
appeared,  as  they  really  are,  very  erroneous 
and  bad,  I  gave  them  up;  and  from  that  time 
have  never  been  able  to  preach  a  baptizing 
sermon.  I  saw  that  the  whole  strength  of  a 
Baptist  was  gone. 

By  the  removal  of  these  two  arguments, 
thus  much  is  gained;  that  whatever  can  be 
advanced,  on  the  part  of  infants,  will  stand 
with  undiminished  force.  For  it  will  now 
avail  nothing  to  say,  with  the  first  argument, 
there  is  no  express  law  for  infant  baptism ; 
nor  will  it  be  of  any  use  to  affirm,  according 
to  the  second,  that  infants  have  no  faith,  no 
repentance;  because  the  arguments  them- 
selves being  fallacious,  whatever  may  be 
urged  from  them,  will  be  entirely  devoid  of 
force  against  infant  baptism. 

Having  now  finished  what  I  intended  on 
the  arguments,  on  one  side,  I  proceed  to 
those  on  the  other.  I  am  well  persuaded, 
that  the  Scriptures  cannot  favour  both  sides; 
and  had  the  arguments  against  infant  bap- 
tism been  good,  I  am  convinced  that  nothing 
in  the  word  of  God  would  have  given  it  any 
countenance.  But  since  the  truth  must  be 
either  for  or  against  the  baptism  of  infants, 
and  the  arguments  against  being  futile,  it  is 
certain  the  truth  must  lie  on  the  other  side. 
5 


50  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 


CHAPTER  II. 

Arguments  on  the  side  of  Infant  Baptism. 

Infant  baptism  is  to  be  proved,  in  the  same 
way,  as  female  communion.  In  the  case  of 
female  communion,  all  the  Baptists  I  have 
ever  conversed  with,  on  that  subject,  make 
use  of  inference  and  analogy;  and,  though  in 
them  it  is  ridiculous,  they  are  not  able  to 
prove  it  in  any  other  way.  And  this  method 
is  even  adopted  by  Mr.  Booth,  as  I  shall 
more  plainly  evince  in  another  place;  though 
glaringly  inconsistent  with  his  own  principles. 
As  I  am  now  to  advance  proof  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism,  the  simple  method  I  mean  to 
adopt  will  be  the  following.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  a  fact  acknowledged  by  the  Bap- 
lists  themselves,  that  infants  were  at  an  early 
period  constituted  members  of  the  church  of 
God.  In  the  next  place,  I  shall  produce 
proof,  that  they  have  a  right  to  be  so  now; 
and  that  the  constitution  of  God  by  which 
they  were  made  members,  has  not  been 
altered  to  this  day.  In  the  last  place,  I  shall 
lay  down  this  dilemma,  which  will  conclude 
the  whole  business,  namely:  As  infants  by 
a  divine  and  unaltered  constitution  have  a 
right  to  be  received  as  church  members,  they 
must  be  received  either  with  baptism  or  with- 
out it.  If  they  are  not  to  be  received  with- 
out baptism,  then,  the  consequent  is,  that 
they  must  be  baptized,  because  they  must  be 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  51 

received. — I  now  request  the  reader's  atten- 
tion to  each  of  these  in  their  order. 


ARGUMENT  I. 

God  has  constituted  in  his  Church  the  membership  of  in- 
fants, and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  religious  rite. 

In  this  argument  it  is  proper  to  take  notice 
of  two  parts. 

1.  The  church-membership  of  infants. — A 
church  is  a  society  that  stands  in  special  re- 
lation to  God,  being  instituted  for  religious 
purposes.  When  the  persons  composing  this 
society  appear  openly  in  such  relation  to  God, 
it  is  called  a  visible  church;  and  of  such  an 
one  I  now  speak.  The  relation  between  God 
and  this  society,  is  formed  by  God  himself, 
by  declaring  he  is,  and  will  be  their  God. 
This  declaration  of  God  which  constituted 
that  relation,  which  indeed  did  exist  from 
the  beginning,  had  an  equal  regard  to  adults 
and  infants;  "  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee.''  And  hence  both 
young  and  old,  who  had  been  duly  entered, 
were  considered  as  children  of  the  covenant 
and  the  kingdom,  that  is,  of  the  church.  The 
rite  of  circumcision  being  performed,  the  cir- 
cumcised was  presented  to  the  Lord;  which 
is  a  mode  of  expression  to  signify  a  public 
entering  into  church-fellowship. 

The  case,  as  now  stated,  is,  I  suppose, 
commonly  admitted.  It  is  granted  by  Bap- 
tists, who  are  the  most  likely  of  any  to  deny 


52  ARGUMENTS   ON  THE  SIDE 

it,  that  infants  were  members  of  the  Jewish 
church.  Mr.  Booth  grants  it,  vol.  ii.  224.  So 
does  Mr.  Keach,  Gold  refined,  page  113. 
"That  children  were  admitted  members  of 
the  Jewish  church  is  granted."  And  indeed 
it  is  not  possible  to  deny  this,  without  deny- 
ing that  adults  themselves  were  members, 
which  would  be  the  same  as  denying  that 
God  had  a  church  in  the  world.  Infants, 
therefore,  were  constituted  by  God  himself, 
members  of  his  own  visible  church. 

II.  Infants,  in  order  to  visible  membership, 
were  the  subjects  of  a  religious  rite.  That 
circumcision  was  a  religious  rite,  is  as  easily 
proved,  as  that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per are  such.  Mr.  Booth,  in  this  case,  is  in 
a  strait  betwixt  two;  he  is  not  willing  flatly 
to  deny  it,  nor  yet  can  he  prevail  on  himself 
to  acknowledge  it.  He  is  very  tender  upon 
the  subject,  as  if  he  saw  some  formidable 
consequence  lurking  beneath  it.  See  what 
he  says,  vol.  ii.  250.  "  Baptism  is  an  ap- 
pointment purely  religious,  and  intended  for 
purposes  entirely  spiritual;  but  circumci- 
sion, besides  the  spiritual  instruction  sug- 
gested by  it,  was  a  sign  of  carnal  descent,  a 
mark  of  national  distinction,  and  a  token  of 
interest  in  those  temporal  blessings  that  were 
promised  to  Abraham."  Now  can  any  liv- 
ing soul  tell  from  whence  Mr.  B.  had  all 
this?  Was  it  from  the  Koran  or  Talmud  ?  To 
show  he  never  took  his  notion  from  the  Bi- 
ble, I  will  set  the  Bible  against  him,  and  him 
against  it. 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


53 


Booth. 
It  was  a  token  of 
interest   in   temporal 
blessings. 


It   was  a   sign  of 
carnal  descent. 

It  was  a  mark  of 
national  distinction. 


Bible. 

It  was  a  token 
of  the  covenant  be- 
tween God  and  Abra- 
ham, to  be  a  God  to 
him  and  his  seed. 

It  was  a  sign  of 
circumcision,  i.  e.  of 
the  heart  and  spirit. 

It  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith. 


Now  compare  Mr.  B.  with  fact. 
Booth.  Fact, 


It  was  a  to- 
ken of  inter- 
est in  tempo- 
ral blessings. 

It  was  a 
mark  of  na- 
tional distinc- 
tion. 

It  was  a 
sign  of  carnal 
descent. 


Many  had  the  interest 
without  the  token,  and  many 
had  the  token  without  the 
interest. 

Many  other  nations  had 
the  same  mark.  So  it  was 
a  distinction  which  did  not 
distinguish. 

All  Abraham's  male  ser- 
vants, and  many  proselytes, 
were  circumcised.  Either 
these  were  descended  from 
Abraham,  or  Mr.  B.'s  sign 
was  deceptive. 


See  what  the  love  of  hypothesis  can  do! 
Could  any  man  have  given  a  poorer  account 
of  circumcision  than  Mr.  B.  has  done? 


54 


ARGUMENTS  OX  THE  SIDE 


But  was  it  not,  after  all,  a  truly  religious 
institute?  Mr.  B.  is  not  willing  to  deny  this 
altogether.  He  seems  to  grant,  at  least  by 
implication,  that  it  was  half  a  religious  rite. 
"Baptism,"  says  he,  "is  an  appointment 
purely  religious,  for  purposes  entirely  spi- 
ritual." By  his  using  the  words  purely  and 
entirely  as  applied  to  baptism,  and  then 
comparing  it  to  circumcision,  he  seems  to 
admit  that  circumcision  was  partly  a  religi- 
ous rite.  All  he  will  grant  in  plain  terms, 
concerning  the  religious  nature  of  this  insti- 
tute is,  that  it  "suggested  spiritual  instruc- 
tion ;"  which  is  not  peculiar  to  any  rite  either 
Jewish  or  Christian.  I  am  sorry  to  see  a 
man,  of  Mr.  B.'s  ability,  trifle  after  this  sort. 
He  certainly  knew  not  what  to  make  of  it; 
he  saw  something  in  its  aspect  dreadfully, 
formidable  to  his  system,  and  was  afraid  of 
its  appearing,  in  that  form,  in  which  it  is  set 
forth  in  the  word  of  God.  These  strokes  in 
Mr.  B.'s  book,  and  such  as  these,  which  I 
intend  to  notice,  convince  me  more  than  any 
thing  I  have  ever  read,  of  the  fallacy  of  the 
Baptist's  scheme. 

Leaving  Mr.  B's  erroneous  account  of  this 
ordinance,  we  will  view  it  as  represented  in 
the  word  of  God.  To  see,  then,  whether  it 
is  a  religious  rite,  we  have  only  to  view  it, 
in  its  various  relations  to  religion;  and  cir- 
cumcision thus  viewed  will  appear  to  have 
been  of  that  description,  as  truly  as  baptism 
or  the  Lord's  Supper.     Let  it  be  considered 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  55 

in  its  institution — in  its  application — in  its 
obligation — and  connexion  with  religious 
things. 

1.  In  its  institution.  In  this  view  of  it,  it 
was  a  token  of  God's  covenant  made  with 
Abraham,  in  which  he  promised  to  be  a  God 
unto  him,  and  his  seed  after  him.  And  then, 
as  an  appendage,  he  promised  to  give  him 
and  his  seed  the  land  of  Canaan  for  his  tem- 
poral subsistence.  For  earthly  things  are 
appendages  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  they 
are  things  added,  as  our  Lord  expresses  it, 
to  help  a  saint  through  this  world. 

2.  We  may  view  it  further,  in  its  applica- 
tion, under  the  threefold  notion  of  a  token,  a 
sign,  and  a  seal.  As  a  token,  it  is  a  ratifica- 
tion of  God's  grant  in  covenant,  to  be  a  God 
to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  As  a  sign,  it  de- 
notes the  grace  of  God  on  the  heart,  where- 
by it  is  enabled  to  love  God,  to  worship  him, 
and  to  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh.  Beut. 
XXX.  6.  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  Phil.  iii.  3.  And 
therefore  called  a  sign  of  circumcision,  i.  e. 
of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart.  As  a  seal, 
it  applies  to  the  righteousness  of  faith,  i.  e. 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  which  men 
are  justified. 

3.  We  may  consider  it,  in  its  connexion. 
And  this  is,  with  the  Scriptures,  Rom.  iii.  2. 
"To  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of 
God."  With  the  promises,  [Rom.  xv.  8.] 
"  Now  I  say — that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  min- 
ister of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God, 
to  confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  fa- 


56  ARGUMENTS   ON  THE  SIDE 

Ihers.'^  With  baptism,  Col.  ii.  11, 12,  where- 
in these  two  are  spoken  of  as  standing  on  a 
level  with  each  other,  as  being  each  of  them 
of  the  same  religious  kind. 

If  we  view  it  in  its  obligation,  we  may 
observe,  that  as  it  was  an  entering  into  the 
visible  church  of  God,  so  it  bound  the  per- 
son, who  received  it,  to  a  conformity  to  all 
other  institutes,  Gal.  iii.  3.  Without  this 
conformity  it  profited  nothing,  for  where  this 
was  wanting,  it  was  deemed  a  nullity.  That 
rite,  therefore,  which  obliges  to  a  conformity 
to  religion,  must  be  a  religious  rite. 

When,  therefore,  we  consider  this  institute, 
in  its  use  and  application,  under  all  these 
views,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  being  a 
religious  institute;  because  its  whole  use  and 
application  are  so.  And  as  nothing  more 
can  be  said  to  prove  the  religious  nature  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  a  man  might 
as  well  deny  these  to  be  religious  ordinances, 
as  the  other.  And  hence  it  is  that  Mr.  B.'s 
conduct  is  the  more  to  be  wondered  at,  who, 
notwithstanding  he  must  have  seen  all  this 
in  Scripture,  does,  without  authority  from 
the  word  of  God,  transform  it  into  a  mere 
secular  political  rite.  And  this  is  done  to 
destroy  all  analogy  between  it  and  baptism, 
for  fear  that  analogy  should  prove  the  de- 
struction of  his  scheme. 

Mr.  B.  in  his  preface  says,  non  tali  aux- 
ilio,  7iec  defensoribus  istis.  This  is  to  inti- 
mate to  the  reader,  that  a  good  cause  does 
not  need  a  bad  defence.     Now,  if  we  are  to 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  57 

form  a  judgment  of  the  cause  he  has  under- 
taken to  support,  from  the  means  he  makes 
use  of,  to  support  it,  we  cannot  suppose  the 
cause  he  has  taken  in  hand,  is  any  other  than 
a  very  bad  one.  I  question  if  a  carnal  Jew- 
could  have  given  a  more  frigid,  degrading 
account  of  an  institution  of  God,  than  he  has 
done.  According  to  him,  it  was  only  a  sign 
of  carnal  descent — a  mark  of  national  dis- 
tinction— a  token  of  interest  in  temporal 
blessings — it  had  a  political  aspect — it  was 
performed  with  political  views — and  (not 
knowing  very  well  what  to  do  with  it,  he  in- 
troduces a  learned  word,  and  says)  it  was 
adapted  to  an  ecclesiastico-political  constitu- 
tion. Thus  he.  But  one  thing  he  forgot — 
he  has  not  given  all  this  the  sanction  of  the 
sacred  text.  Indeed,  if  it  agree  to  any  thing 
in  the  Bible,  it  agrees  best  of  all  to  the  cir- 
cumcision of  those  poor  Shechemites,  who 
were  first  deceived  and  then  destroyed  by 
the  sons  of  Jacob.    Gen.  xxxiv. 

These  two  parts  of  the  proposition  being 
evinced;  namely,  1.  The  church-membership 
of  infants;  and,  2.  their  admission  to  it,  by  a 
religious  rite;  the  whole  proposition  which 
I  undertake  to  maintain,  and  to  lay  as  a 
ground-work,  from  which  to  conclude  the 
baptism  of  infants,  is  this;  God  has  consti- 
tuted in  his  church  the  membership  of  in- 
fants, and  has  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  re- 
ligious rite.  Before  I  pass  to  the  next  argu- 
ment, I  will  make  a  remark  on  each  part. 

I.  From  this  fact,  we  learn  so  much  of  the 
6 


58  ARGUMENTS    ON   THE    SIDE 

mind  of  God,  as  to  be  able  to  conclude,  that 
there  is  nothing  in  a  state  of  infancy,  incom- 
patible with  church-membership.  The  rea- 
son is  evident;  for  had  there  been  any  thing 
unsuitable  in  such  a  practice,  God,  who  is  an 
infinitely  wise  judge  of  decency  and  fitness, 
would  never  have  ordained  it.  This  conduct 
of  the  infinitely  wise  God,  and  the  practice 
of  about  two  thousand  years,  stand  in  direct 
repugnancy  to  the  weak  prejudice  of  Bap- 
tists; who,  from  the  sentiment  they  have 
adopted,  are  led  to  suppose  that  there  is  no- 
thing in  nature  more  ridiculous,  than  the  idea 
of  infants  being  church  members.  This  is 
one  instance  of  human  depravity;  whereby 
the  weakness  of  man  sets  itself  up  against 
the  wisdom  of  God;  and  as  this  is  the  more 
to  be  admired  in  those  persons,  who  in  other 
respects  are  desirous  of  submitting  to  the 
whole  will  of  God;  so  it  serves  to  show, 
what  a  very  unhappy  influence  the  admis- 
sion of  an  erroneous  sentiment  may  gain 
over  the  mind. 

II.  It  appears  from  this  part  of  the  divine 
conduct,  in  plain  opposition  to  the  views  of 
Baptists,  that  the  ignorance  and  want  of  faith, 
inseparable  from  a  state  of  infancy,  are  no  im- 
pediments to  the  administration  of  a  religious 
ordinance;  and  this  truth  should  be  the  more 
regarded  by  us,  as  it  stands  supported  by  the 
high  authority  of  God;  and  is  as  a  thousand 
arguments  against  all  those  pleas  which  are 
drawn  from  the  incapacity  of  infants.  For 
while  we  see  those  declared  fit  subjects  of  a 


OP   INFANT  BAPTISM.  59 

religious  ordinance,  who  could  know  nothing 
of  its  nature  or  use;  with  what  prudence  or 
piety  can  any  man  presume  to  affirm,  that 
infants  are  incapable  of  such  an  ordinance? 
But  if  any  one  should  take  so  much  autho- 
rity on  himself,  as  to  arbitrate  against  the 
wisdom  of  God,  he  would  do  well  to  con- 
sider, that  God  is  true,  and  every  man  a  liar, 
L  e.  that  judges  differently. 


ARGUMENT   II. 

The  church-membership  of  infants  was  never  set  aside  by 
God  or  man;  but  continues  in  force  under  the  sanction 
of  God,  to  the  present  day. 

The  force  of  this  and  the  preceding  argu- 
ment, taken  together,  may  be  comprehended 
by  any  man  of  common  reasoning  powers. 
Every  one  knows,  that  what  was  once  done, 
and  never  undone,  must  of  course  remain 
the  same:  and  that  what  was  once  granted, 
and  never  revoked,  must  needs  continue  as  a 
grant.  There  can  be  no  fallacy  in  all  this. 
These  arguments,  therefore,  being  fairly 
maintained,  will  carry  us  forward,  to  a 
dilemma;  and  that  dilemma  will  bring  us 
home  to  the  conclusion. 

In  good  theory,  the  proof  of  this  argument 
should  not  lie  upon  the  Pgedobaptist.  For 
if  I  affirm,  and  prove,  that  God  did  settle  a 
certain  plan  respecting  church  members,  and 
another  should  come  and  affirm  that  that 
plan  was  now  altered;  it  should  lie  on  him 


60  ARGUMENTS   ON  THE  SIDE 

to  produce  his  proof  that  such  an  alteration 
has  taken  place;  and  the  reason  is,  that  what- 
ever God  has  established  should  be  supposed 
to  continue,  though  we  could  bring  no  proof 
of  its  continuance,  unless  we  are  plainly  told 
that  lie  has  ordered  it  otherwise.  And  then, 
since  there  is  not  a  single  text  in  Scripture  to 
prove  that  the  church-membership  of  infants 
is  annulled,  this  argument  should  remain  in 
force  without  further  proof.  However,  I 
will  waive  this  privilege,  which  I  might 
justly  claim,  and  proceed  to  evince  the  argu- 
ment I  have  laid  down. 

There  was  only  one  point  of  time,  in  which 
it  is  even  supposed  that  church-membership 
of  infants  was  set  aside  ;  and  that  was,  when 
the  Gentiles  were  taken  into  a  visible  church 
state.  In  that  period,  several  institutions  did 
cease,  and  some  new  ones  were  ordained. 
Our  only  question  is,  whether  the  church- 
membership  of  infants  did  cease  at  the  same 
time.  It  is  evident  that  the  mere  change  or 
cessation  of  institutes  could  work  no  change 
upon  membership,  any  more  than  a  man's 
having  his  clothes  changed  can  produce  a 
change  upon  the  man.  All  institutes,  whe- 
ther typical  or  ratifying,  that  is,  all  institutes 
of  every  kind,  are  to  be  considered,  in  re- 
spect to  church  members,  as  means  of  grace, 
and  nourishments  for  faith,  respecting  Christ 
the  mediator,  and  the  unsearchable  riches  of 
Christ;  and  then  a  change  taking  place  in 
these  things,  will,  in  itself,  produce  no  more 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  ,    61 

alteration  in  the  members  of  the  church,  than 
a  change  in  a  man's  diet  will  destroy  the 
identity  of  the  man. 

I  am  now  to  prove  the  church-member- 
ship of  infants,  which  having  been  ordained 
of  God,  was  never  annulled,  but  carried  for- 
ward into  the  Gentile  church;  and  so  conse- 
quently is  in  force  at  the  present  time.  And 
this  I  shall  proceed  to  do. 

From  Scripture  views  of  God's  dispensa- 
tion towards  the  Gentiles. 

Much  light  might  be  thrown  upon  this 
subject,  by  considering  those  prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  relate  to  the  call- 
ing in  of  the  Gentiles.  This  Dr.  Williams 
has  done  to  great  advantage:  but  my  design 
being  brevity,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  pas- 
sages on  that  subject  in  the  New  Testament. 

I.  Matt.  xxi.  43.  "  Therefore  say  I  unto 
you,  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from 
you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the 
fruits  thereof.'' 

The  plain  meaning  of  this  passage  is,  that 
as,  in  times  past,  the  church  of  God,  which 
is  his  kingdom,  was  limited  to  Judea;  so,  in 
future,  he  would  have  a  church  in  the  Gen- 
tile world.  The  taking  of  the  kingdom  from 
the  Jews,  and  giving  it  to  the  Gentiles,  de- 
notes, 

1.  The  ceasing  of  a  regular  church  state 
among  the  Jews.  And  this  actually  took 
place,  by  the  destruction  of  some,  and  the 
dispersion  of  others,  who  did  not  receive  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  sent  of  God;    while 


62  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 

those  who  did  receive  him,  were  at  length 
removed  from  Judea,  and  by  degrees  lost 
the  name  of  Jew,  in  that  of  Christian.  Rom. 
xi.  12. 

2.  The  setting  up  a  regular  church  state 
among  the  Gentiles.  This,  as  the  cessation 
of  the  church  among  the  Jews,  was  gradu- 
ally brought  about.  For  the  Gentiles  who 
came  over  to  Christ,  joining  themselves  to 
the  Jewish  church,  became  in  time  the  larger 
part.  So  that  by  the  increase  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  the  breaking  off  of  the  worthless 
branches  among  the  Jews,  nothing  remained 
but  an  entire  Gentile  church. 

3.  The  sameness  of  the  church  state  among 
the  Gentiles,  with  that  among  the  Jews.  For 
taking  away  and  giving  cannot  import  a 
change  in  the  thing  taken  and  given;  but  a 
transfer,  the  passing  of  a  thing  from  one  to  the 
other.  The  kingdom  given  to  the  Gentiles  was 
the  same  that  was  taken  from  the  Jews:  for 
all  that  was  taken  from  the  Jews  was  given  to 
the  Gentiles.  Now,  if  we  would  know  what 
was  to  be  the  church  state  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, we  have  only  to  learn  what  it  had  been 
among  the  Jews:  for  in  both  cases  the  church 
state  was  the  same.  And  then,  as  it  has  be- 
fore been  proved,  and  admitted  by  the  Bap- 
tists, that  the  church  state  among  the  Jews 
consisted  in  the  membership  of  adults  and 
infants,  the  church  state  among  the  Gentiles 
must  consist  of  adults  and  infants  too;  because 
the  same  that  was  taken  from  the  Jews  was 
given  to  the  Gentiles.     And  so  it  appears 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  63 

from  God's  dispensation  to  the  Gentiles,  that 
the  church-membership  of  infants  was  not 
set  aside. — I  will  anticipate  two  objections 
in  this  place,  which  may  be  urged  on  each 
of  the  passages  I  shall  allege. 

1.  It  may  be  said,  that  in  this  way  of  view- 
ing the  subject,  all  the  ordinances  and  rituals 
of  the  Jewish  church  must  be  adopted  by  the 
Gentile.  To  this  I  answer,  that  these  things 
were  not  of  the  essence  of  a  church  state; 
but  only  means  of  grace,  and  helps  to  faith 
for  the  time  being.  Neither  were  these  taken 
and  given,  but  annulled;  they  were  not  trans- 
ferred, but  abolished.  Rituals  are  to  a  church, 
as  diet  or  ornaments  are  to  a  man;  let  the 
diet  be  changed,  and  the  ornaments  removed, 
the  essence  of  the  man  will  be  still  the  same. 
So  the  state  and  essence  of  the  church  of  God, 
before  these  rituals  were  ordained,  and  while 
they  were  in  force,  and  after  their  abolition, 
was,  and  is,  and  must  be,  the  same.  This 
will  be  handled  more  fully  in  another  place. 

2.  If  any  should  say,  it  does  not  appear 
that  women  in  the  Jewish  church  were  ad- 
mitted to  an  initiating  rite;  and  if  so,  there  is 
a  difference  between  the  present  church  and 
the  Jewish;  I  observe  in  answer,  that  this 
difference  does  not  imply  a  removing  or 
changing  of  any  thing;  but  merely  that  of  add- 
ing. That  whereas  the  church  state  among 
the  Jews  included  males  both  adult  and  in- 
fant ;  so  to  the  Gentile  church,  together  with 
these,  there  is,  by  the  express  order  of  God, 
the  superaddition  of  females. 


64  AHGUMENTS    ON   THE    SIDE 

I  would  observe  further,  that  the  addition 
of  females  seems  to  me  to  be  very  favourable 
to  the  argument  I  am  upon ;  jDecause  it  is  a 
new  provision  annexed  to  an  old  law.  Now 
an  alteration  made  in  a  law,  gives  an  addi- 
tional firmness  to  all  those  parts  which  are 
not  altered.  And  the  reason  is,  it  supposes 
that  all  the  unaltered  parts  are  perfectly  agree- 
able to  the  legislator's  iiiind.  And  so,  when 
the  Lord  expressly  took  aw.ay  the  partition 
between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  male  and  fe- 
male; and  passed  over  infants  without  mak- 
ing the  least  alteration  in  their  case  ;  he  there- 
by gave  a  superadded  confirmation,  tliat  the 
church-membership  of  infants,  which  had 
been  before  established,  was  in  every  respect 
agreeable  to  his  will. 

II.  Rom.  xi.23,24.  "And  they  also,  if  th«y 
abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  in 
again :  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again. 
For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive-tree, 
which  is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  grafted 
contrary  to  nature  into  a  good  olive-tree;  how 
much  more  shall  these  which  be  the  natural 
branches,  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive- 
tree?" 

1.  The  olive-tree  is  to  denote  a  visible 
church  state.  2.  The  Jews  are  said  to  be  na- 
tural branches,  because  they  descended  from 
Abraham,  to  whom  the  promise  was  made. 
"  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed." 
3.  The  Gentiles  were  brought  into  the  same 
church  state,  from  which  the  Jews  were  bro- 
ken oflf.     4.  The  apostle  snggesteth,  that  the 


I 


OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  65 

Jews  will  again  be  grafted  into  their  own 
olive-tree.  •  From  whence,  with  a  view  to 
my  purpose,  I  would  notice, 

1.  The  future  state  of  the  Jews,  who,  he 
says,  if  they  abide  not  in  unbelief,  shall  be 
grafted  in  again.  Grafting  in  again  is  the 
bringing  of  a  person  or  thing  into  the  same 
condition  in  which  it  was  before.  So  the 
grafting  in  again  of  the  Jews,  is  putting  them 
into  the  same  church  state,  in  which  they 
were  -before  they  were  broken  off.  What 
was  their  church  state  before  they  were  bro- 
ken off.  I  answer,  as  before  pr(5ved,  that  it 
consisted  of  the  membership  of  adults  and 
infants.  Why  then,  if  it  before  consisted  of 
adults  and  infants,  it  will'again  consist  of  the 
same :  because  grafting  in  again  is  the  plaoing 
of  persons  so  grafted,  in  their  former  state. 
And  that  is  in  fact  the  same  state,  in  which 
they  would  have  continued,  if  they  had  never 
been  broken  off.  That  is,  if  it  had  not  been 
for  their  unbelief,  (for  which  they  were  cut 
off,)  they  would  have  continued,  both  they 
and  their  infants,  as  members  of  the  church 
of  God.  So  when  iX  shall  please  God  to  give 
them  faith,  they  will  be  reinstated,  i.  e.  they 
and  their  infants  will  be  members  of  the 
church  of  God  again. 

In  compliance  with  this  idea,  I  will  just 
turn  aside  to  observe,  that  it  is  natural  for  one 
error  to  lead  to  another;  and  that  this  is  not 
more  evident  in  any,  than  it  is  in  the  Baptists. 
They  grant  that  infants  were  members  of  the 
Jewish  church;  and  this  from  them  is  a  very 


66  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

considerable  concession.  But  a  concession 
like  this,  leads  to  a  consequence  horribly 
alarming  to  their  system.  For  if  infants  were 
once  members  of  the  church  of  God;  then,  it 
is  evident,  they  were  capable  of  such  mem- 
bership; and  then  the  question  will  be,  When 
did  they  cease  to  be  members?  and  why  are 
they  not  so  now  ? 

To  remove  this  difficulty,  the  Baptists  have 
recourse  to  this  expedient.  For  as  they  can- 
not show  from  any  place  of  Scripture,  that 
infants  are  expressly  set  aside  from  church- 
membership;  they  fall  to  degrading  the  Jew- 
ish church,  its  membership  and  institutions  : 
And  when  they  have  dpne,  there  is  hardly 
any  church  or  institution  left.  What  was  the 
Jewish  church  ?  Mr.  Booth,  vol.  ii.  252.  "  It 
was  an  ecclesiastico-political  constitution.'^ 
What  was  the  membership  of  it?  Mr.  B. 
page  251.  "An  obedient  subject  of  their  civil 
government,  and  a  complete  member  of  their 
church  state,  were  the  same  thing.  What  was 
the  church  institute?  Mr.  B.  page  250,  &c. 
"  It  was  a  sign  of  carnal  descent,  a  mark  of 
national  distinction;  it  had  a  political  aspect, 
and  was  performed  with  political  views.''  I 
wish  I  had  a  good  casuist  at  my  elbow,  to 
explain  what  kind  of  church  this  could  be. 
For  had  I  been  Mr.  B.  I  would,  to  save  trou- 
ble, have  fairly  denied  that  it  was  any  church 
at  all.  And  to  say  the  truth  of  him,  he  has 
fairly  done  all  this. 

Now,  it  is  a  desperate  cause,  that  leads  a 
man  to  fall  upon  the  very  church  of  God. 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  67 

But  this  is  done  to  show  that  there  is  so  great 
a  difference  between  the  church  that  now  is, 
and  that  which  once  was,  (or  rather  never 
was)  that  though  infants  were  members  of 
the  one,  they  have  no  right,  no  capacity,  to 
be  members  of  the  other. 

This  is  one  shift  to  ward  off  the  conse- 
quence I  have  mentioned.  But  now  we  want 
another  shift,  to  escape  the  consequence  that 
is  yet  to  come.  "And  they,  if  they  abide  not 
still  in  unbeHef,  shall  be  grafted  in  again." 
Grafting  in  again  is  the  bringing  of  persons 
or  things  into  their  former  condition.  Now, 
if  the  former  Jewish  church  state  was  all  po- 
litical, as  Mr.  B.  will  have  it;  then  the  con- 
sequence will  be,  that  when  the  Jews  shall 
confess  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  believe 
with  their  heart,  that  God  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  &c.  and  shall  in  consequence  be  re- 
ingrafted  into  their  own  olive-tree;  they  will 
be  all  political  again!  A  mere  ecclesiastico- 
political  constitution !  wherein  an  obedient 
subject  of  civil  government,  and  a  complete 
member  of  a  church,  will  be  the  sam.e  thing! 
Well,  when  this  shall  take  place,  infant  church 
membership  may  come  about  again. 

But  I  return  from  this  digression  to  notice, 
2.  The  present  state  of  the  Gentiles.  It  ap- 
pears from  the  text,  that  the  church  state  is 
the  same  to  the  Gentiles,  as  it  had  been  to 
the  Jews,  and  as  it  will  be  to  the  Jews,  in 
some  future  period,  when  it  shall  please  God 
to  graft  them  in  again.  And  the  reason  of  this 
is,  because  each  in  their  turn  belong  to  the 


68  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

same  olive-tree,  i.  e.  the  visible  church  state. 
And  therefore,  as  infants  made  a  part  of  the 
church  before  the  Jews  were  cut  off,  and  will 
again  make  a  part,  when  they  shall  be  rein- 
grafted;  they  must  likewise  make  a  part 
among  the  Gentiles:  because  the  same  olive- 
tree,  i.  e.  church  state,  must  confer  the  same 
privilege  on  all  who  shall  be  in  it. 

This  truth  will  receive  additional  confir- 
mation, and  the  contrary  error  will  be  more 
evident,  if  we  consider,  that  since  infants 
were  once  members  among  the  Jews;  and 
when  their  reingrafting  shall  take  place,  will 
be  so  again;  so,  if  among  the  Gentiles  they 
are  deemed  improper  subjects  of  membership, 
and,  in  consequence  of  that,  are  universally 
rejected, two  things  will  follow:  1. There  will 
be,  in  the  mean  time,  a  very  unhandsome 
schism  in  the  ecclesiastical  chain.  For  though 
infants  were  found  members  in  the  first  ages 
of  the  church,  and  will  be  so  in  the  last,  there 
will  be  none  to  fill  up  the  middle.  And,  2. 
There  will  also  be,  in  future  time,  a  very  un- 
pleasant discordancy.  For  when  the  Jews 
shall  be  grafted  in  again,  they  will  adopt 
their  old  practice  of  receiving  infants  to  mem- 
bership; while  the  Gentiles,  denying  they 
have  any  such  right,  will  persist  in  shutting 
them  out;  and  all  this,  as  some  suppose,  in 
the  spiritual  reign  of  Christ. 

III.  Rom.  xi.  17.  "And  if  some  of  the 
branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou  being  a 
wild  olive-tree,  were  grafted  in  among  them, 
and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fat- 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  69 

ness  of  the  olive-tree;  boast  not  thyself  against 
the  branches." 

1.  The  olive-tree,  as  before  noted,  is  the 
visible  chnrch  state.  2.  The  branches  are 
members  of  the  visible  church.  3.  Some  of 
these  were  broken  off,  and  some  remained. 
4.  The  Gentiles  who  were  called  of  God, 
were  united  to  this  remnant;  for  they  were 
grafted  in  among  them.  From  this  view  of 
the  passage,  I  draw  these  three  conclusions: 

1.  That  there  was  no  discontinuance  of  the 
ancient  church  state;  in  its  essence,  it  re- 
mained the  same  as  it  had  always  been. 
That  this  is  a  true  conclusion  appears  from 
hence;  the  text  informs  us  that  some  of  the 
branches  were  broken  off;  and  if  only  some, 
then  not  all;  and  that  remnant, continuing  in 
their  former  state,  constituted  the  still  exist- 
ing church  of  God.  And  then  it  follows,  that 
as  the  church  state  continued  as  before,  the 
membership  of  infants  must  likewise  continue: 
because  the  membership  of  infants  was  a  part 
of  that  church  state.  And  this  is  the  reason, 
that  no  new  regulation,  respecting  infants, 
was  made,  or  was  necessary  to  be  made;  for 
all,  who  knew  what  God  had  ordained  re- 
specting membership,  knew  very  well  what 
to  do  with  their  infants,  without  any  further 
information  on  that  subject.  This  is  the  first 
conclusion,  viz.  that  the  ancient  church  state 
was  not  dissolved  when  the  Gentiles  were 
called  in.    And  hence  it  follows, 

2.  That  the  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles  did 
not  constitute  a  new  church.     This  passage 


70  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

informs  us,  that  when  the  Gentiles  were 
called  in,  they  became  members  of  the  church 
already  constituted:  "They  were  grafted  in 
among  them,''  and  so  became  one  body,  one 
fold;  that  "  with  them  they  might  partake  of 
the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree."  The 
first  Gentiles  of  whose  calling  we  read,  are 
said  to  have  been  added  to  the  church;  but 
there  was  no  church  existing  to  which  they 
could  beaddedjbut  the  ancient  Jewish  church, 
of  which  all  the  apostles  and  disciples  of  our 
Lord  were  members.  If  the  Gentiles,  there- 
fore, were  added  to  the  old  church,  or,  as  the 
text  has  it,  were  grafted  in  among  them,  and 
with  them  did  partake  of  the  root  and  fatness 
of  the  olive  tree;  then  it  is  evident,  that  the 
ancient  church  continued  to  exist,  and  no 
new  one  was  formed  at  the  calling  in  of  the 
Gentiles.  And  then  I  conclude, 

3.  That  infants  were  in  a  state  of  member- 
ship, in  that  very  church  to  which  the  Gen- 
tiles were  joined.  And  this  must  certainly 
be  true;  because  they  were  grafted  into  that 
church,  of  which  infants  are,  by  the  Baptists 
themselves,  granted  to  have  been  members. 
And  then,  it  is  plain  that  infants  made  a  part 
of  that  church,  called  by  some  the  gospel 
church,  the  pure  church  of  primitive  apostolic 
times.  This  conclusion  must  needs  be  ad- 
mitted, unless  any  one  will  affirm,  that  the 
ancient  church  state  was  entirely  dissolved  ; 
or  else,  that  the  Gentiles  were  not  united  to 
this  ancient  church.  And  to  affirm  either  of 
these,  will  be  to  affirm  against  the  word  of 


OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  71 

God  in  general,  and  this  text  in  particular. 
And  herein  the  cause  of  the  Baptists  is  ruined 
both  ways;  for  if  they  maintain,  that  the  old 
church  was  dissolved,  and  the  Gentiles  form- 
ed into  a  new  one,  their  cause  is  ruined,  by 
maintaining  it  against  the  word  of  God.  But 
if  they  grant  that  the  Jewish  church  continued, 
and  that  the  Gentles  were  grafted  in  among 
them,  which  is  the  real  truth ;  then  their  cause 
is  ruined  that  way.  For  then,  as  infants  were 
in  church-fellowship,  in  what  is  called  the 
primitive  apostolic  church,  it  follows,  that 
those  societies,  who  admit  infants  to  fellow- 
ship, act  agreeably  to  the  apostolic  pattern; 
and  consequently  all  those  societies,  who  re- 
fuse to  admit  them,  are  in  an  error. 

IV.  Eph.  ii.  14.  '^  For  he  is  our  peace,  who 
hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us." 

1.  The  terms  [both  and  us]  in  this  place, 
mean  Jews  and  Gentiles.  2.  A  partition  is 
that  which  separates  one  society  or  family 
from  another.  3.  It  is  said  to  have  been  bro- 
ken down  by  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  called  our 
peace,  because  he  made  peace  by  the  blood 
of  his  cross.  4.  The  breaking  down  of  a 
partition  wall,  brings  the  two  societies,  or 
families,  into  one.  From  this  passage,  the  very 
same  conclusions  must  be  drawn  as  from  the 
preceding: 

1.  That  the  Jewish  church  continued  as 
before,  and  was  not  dissolved  at  the  calling 
in  of  the  Gentiles;  and  the  reason  is,  the  tak- 


72  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

ing  down  of  a  partition  implies  no  dissolution 
of  any  society. 

2.  That  the  Gentiles  were  not  formed  into 
a  new  church:  because  the  breaking  down  of 
a  partition  united  them  to  the  Jewish  church, 
and  made  both  one.'' 

3.  The  infants  were  in  actual  membership, 
in  that  church  to  which  the  Gentiles  were 
united;  because  adults  and  infants  being  in 
fellowship  among  the  Jews,  the  removal  of 
the  partition  brought  adults  and  infants  into 
union  with  the  Gentiles.  And  then,  the  point 
is  clearly  gained,  namely,  that  infants  hold 
the  same  place  among  the  Gentiles,  as  they 
held  before  among  the  Jews. 

I  again  affirm,  that  the  point  is  evidently 
carried,  unless  one  of  these  three  things  can 
be  maintained:  1.  That  God  excluded  infants 
before  the  partition  was  taken  down;  or,  2. 
at  the  time  it  was  taken  down;  or,  3.  at  some 
time  after.  For  if  one  or  other  of  these  can- 
not be  supported,  then  infants  retain  their 
right  to  church-membership  to  this  day.  Can 
any  one  maintain  the  first;  that  God  excluded 
infants  before  the  partition  wall  was  broken 
down  ? — Upon  what  period  will  he  fix  ? — 
And  by  what  scripture  will  he  support  it? — 
Will  any  one  affirm  the  third;  that  God  ex- 
cluded them  after  the  partition  was  taken 
down  ? — I  suppose  not.  For  that  would  be 
granting  that  the  Gentiles  continued  some 
time,  i.  e.  till  the  exclusion  took  place  in  fel- 
lowship, in  that  church  in  which  infants  were 
members.     And  then,  I  might  ask  again,  in 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 


73 


what  time  did  the  expulsion  take  place? 
And  where  is  it  recorded  in  the  word  of 
God  ? — But  I  suppose,  that  he  who  contends 
for  such  an  exclusion,  will  affirm  the  second; 
that  infants  were  excluded  at  the  time  the 
partition  wall  was  broken  down.  If  so,  I 
ask,  who  did  exclude  them  ?  And  how  was 
it  done  ?  It  could  not  be  done  by  the  mere 
taking  down  of  the  partition  wall ;  for  the 
taking  down  the  partition  unites  those  who 
before  were  separate,  but  does  not  exclude 
any. 

But  if  they  were  excluded,  it  must  be  done 
either  expressly  or  implicitly.  The  first  is  not 
true ;  for  there  is  no  express  exclusion  of  in- 
fants in  all  the  Scriptures.  And  the  second 
will  not  do  for  a  Baptist ;  for,  as  he  will  not 
admit  implicit  proof  on  the  side  of  infants,  so 
neither  can  he  urge  implicit  proof  against 
them.  But  let  him  take  the  advantage  of 
implication;  and  say,  that  infants  are  exclud- 
ed from  church-membership,  by  all  those 
places  which  require  faith  and  repentance, 
&c.  in  order  to  baptism.  To  this  I  reply,  that 
these  places  of  Scripture  can  no  more  exclude 
infants  from  membership,  than  they  exclude 
them  from  glory.  And  the  fallacy  of  all  this 
has  been  already  fully  evinced,  when  the 
second  argument  against  infant  baptism  was 
considered:  and  to  that  part,  for  his  satisfac- 
tion, I  refer  the  reader.  If,  then,  they  were 
not  excluded  before  the  partition  was  taken 
down,  nor  at  the  time,  nor  at  any  time  since, 
they  were  not  excluded  at  all.  And  then  the 
7 


74  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

consequence  will  be,  that  infants,  according 
to  the  will  of  God,  are  possessed  of  a  right  to 
church-fellowship  under  the  present  dispen- 
sation, and  to  the  present  day. 

By  these  four  passages,  all  relating  to  God's 
dispensation  towards  the  Gentiles,  it  appears, 
that  the  church-membership  of  infants  was 
left  undisturbed,  and  was  carried  forward 
into  the  Gentile  church ;  where  it  continues 
still  the  same  as  when  first  instituted.  And 
the  importance  of  this  fact,  in  the  present  in- 
quiry, is  so  very  considerable,  that  whoever 
admits  it,  must  be  compelled  to  admit  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptism,  as  a  necessary 
consequence.  Now,  that  God  did  ordain 
their  church-membership  has  already  been 
evinced,  and  granted  by  Baptists ;  and  that 
to  the  present  day,  it  has  never  been  annulled, 
is  what  I  am  engaged  to  prove.  I  will,  there- 
fore, in  addition  to  these  four  Scriptures, 
which  of  themselves  clearly  prove  the  fact, 
bring  forward  a  variety  of  evidence,  which 
serves  to  corroborate  this  important  truth. 

1.  There  is  in  the  New  Testament  no  law 
whatever  to  set  aside  the  primitive  right  of 
infants  to  church-membership. 

If  a  law  could  be  found,  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, to  repeal  that  which  had  been  estab- 
lished in  the  Old,  I  grant  freely,  that  all  that 
has  been  said  on  the  four  places  of  Scripture, 
would  signify  nothing.  But  if  no  such  law 
exist,  the  reasoning  on  the  preceding  pas- 
sages will  not  only  remain  untouched,  but 
will  acquire  a  livelier  force  from  that  very 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  75 

fact.  I  need  not  prove  to  a  Baptist,  that  the 
New  Testament  contains  no  law,  by  which 
infant  membership  is  prohibited;  he  readily 
grants  it;  but  adds  in  reply,  that  there  was 
no  necessity  that  such  a  law  should  be  fram- 
ed.    Let  us  examine  the  thought. 

If  indeed  nothing  had  been  done  respect- 
ing infants,  this  answer  would  have  been  a 
good  one;  but  when  the  church-membership 
of  infants  is  considered  as  an  ancient  estab- 
lishment, the  answer  is  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose. For  as  the  case  in  reality  stood,  the 
want  of  a  law  to  set  aside  infant  membership 
left  it  in  its  original  state,  to  continue  down 
to  the  end  of  time.  And  how  could  it  be 
otherwise?  For  who  in  this  world  was  to 
alter  it?  It  came  down  to  Gentile  times,  in 
all  the  force  an  establishment  can  be  sup- 
posed to  have,  or  need  to  have,  in  order  to 
its  continuance.  It  had  the  precept  of  God — 
it  had  the  partiality  of  parents — it  had  the 
practice  of  near  two  thousand  years.  If 
such  an  institution  as  this  needed  no  law  to 
set  it  aside,  which  is  what  the  Baptists  affirm; 
the  true  reason  must  be,  because  it  was  not 
the  design  of  God  it  should  be  set  aside. 
And  what  could  have  been  a  greater  proof 
of  the  design  of  God  to  perpetuate  it,  than 
taking  no  measures  to  stop  its  progress?  So 
that  he,  who  grants  that  no  such  law  was 
made,  does  in  effect  admit,  that  it  is  now  a 
standing  ordinance  in  the  church  of  God,  to 
receive  infants  to  membership.  And  then 
he  must  grant  too,  that  they  should  be  bap- 


76  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 

tized;  because  there  is  no  other  way  of  re- 
ceiving them. 

But  though  a  Baptist  admits  there  is  no 
express  law  against  their  membership  and 
baptism;  yet  he  affirms  that  the  requirement 
of  faith  and  repentance  does  of  itself  exclude 
infants.  This  is  the  purport  of  the  Baptists' 
second  argum-ent  against  infants,  which  I 
have  proved  to  be  a  mere  sophism.  For 
when  faith  and  repentance  are  required,  in 
order  either  to  baptism  or  salvation;  a  very 
easy  distinction  will  make  it  plain,  that  in- 
fants are  not  excluded  in  either  case.  And 
this  distinction  is  easy  and  obvious  to  every 
person. 

1.  It  was  a  very  easy  one  to  a  Jew.  For 
while  he  knew  that  infants  were  received 
into  the  church  by  circumcision,  he  likewise 
knew  that  every  adult  who  was  circumcised, 
put  himself  under  immediate  obligation  to 
confess  his  sins,  to  bring  his  sacrifice,  and  to 
conform  to  all  the  laws  of  that  church.  He 
was  very  sensible  an  infant  could  not  do 
this;  and  yet  he  saw  it  right  to  circumcise 
the  infant.  So  when  he  heard  of  faith,  and 
repentance,  and  confession  of  sin,  respecting 
baptism,  as  a  medium  of  entering  into  the 
church;  he  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  use  the 
same  distinction,  and  all  would  be  plain  and 
easy  as  before. 

2.  The  distinction  is  easy  to  a  Paedobap- 
tist.  For  he  knows,  that  if  the  person  be  an 
adult,  he  must  discover  a  disposition  suited 
to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  ordinance; 


OF   INFANT  BAPTISM.  77 

but  he  knows,  at  the  same  time,  that  this 
was  never  designed  to  affect  an  infant,  and 
that  it  can  be  no  bar  to  his  baptism,  or  bless- 
edness. 

3.  This  distinction  is  easy  to  a  Baptist. 
For  notwithstanding  he  is  well  persuaded, 
that  he  who  beUeveth  not  shall  not  be  saved; 
yet  he  knows  an  infant  may  be  saved,  though 
an  infant  do  not  believe.  All  this  to  him  is 
easy  and  natural,  and  nothing  in  the  world 
more  plain.  If  this  be  so  easy  a  distinction, 
it  may  be  asked,  why  cannot  a  Baptist  carry 
it  to  baptism,  as  well  as  to  any  thing  else?  I 
answer,  he  can  if  he  please;  for  it  arises 
from  no  defect  of  understanding  that  he  does 
not  do  it; — but  it  is  an  unpleasant  thing  to 
employ  a  distinction,  so  as  to  destroy  one's 
own  sentiments. 

In  short,  it  is  only  considering,  that  an  in- 
fant is  not  an  adult,  and  that  an  adult  is  not 
an  infant,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more 
easy;  and  then  the  requirement  of  faith  and 
repentance  is  no  more  a  law  against  the 
membership  and  baptism  of  infants,  than  it 
is  against  their  salvation.  All  I  meant  here, 
was  to  atfirm  that  there  is  no  law,  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  overrule  the  church- 
membership  of  infants;  and  this  is  a  cor- 
roborating evidence,  that  their  membership, 
which  had  been  divinely  instituted,  continues 
the  same  down  to  the  present  time. 

2.  The  Jews,  at  large,  had  no  apprehen- 
sion of  the  exclusion  of  infants;  they  neither 
oppose  nor  approve,  which  they  doubtless 


78 


ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 


would  have  done,  if  such  an  exclusion  had 
taken  place. 

This  is  a  circumstance  which  merits  par- 
ticular attention,  and  has  no  small  influence 
upon  the  present  question.  For  as  every 
material  alteration  in  old  customs  is  apt  to 
stir  up  some  opposition;  so,  had  such  a 
change  as  this  been  introduced,  by  which 
the  infant  offspring  would  have  been  put 
back  from  their  former  place  in  the  church 
of  God,  it  must  have  furnished  occasion  to  a 
variety  of  animadversions:  some,  perhaps, 
might  have  been  for  it,  while  many  would 
have  opposed  the  new  plan.  That  this 
would  have  happened,  had  such  a  revolu- 
tion taken  place,  will  appear  still  more  cer- 
tain, if  we  consider  the  nature  of  such  a 
change,  and  the  persons  who  would  have 
felt  themselves  hurt  by  its  introduction. 

1.  As  to  the  change  itself,  it  had  a  ten- 
dency to  aff'ect  in  a  very  sensible  part.  And 
this  is  a  clear  case,  whether  we  consider  the 
tender  age  of  the  subjects — or  their  number 
— or  the  privilege  to  which  they  were  ad- 
mitted— or  the  length  of  time  through  which 
the  practice  had  been  carried — or  lastly,  the 
divine  authority  which  gave  rise  to  that 
practice.  Here  is  a  practice  of  two  thousand 
years  standing.  The  privilege  was  that  of 
admitting  infants  to  membership  in  the  church 
of  God — these  infants  formed  a  number  in 
Israel  exceedingly  great.  And  this  practice 
did  not  take  its  rise  from  some  dark  verbal 
or  written  tradition;  but  stood  supported  by 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  79 

the  lively  oracles  of  God.  Such  was  the 
custom  which  the  Baptists  suppose  was  an- 
nulled about  this  time. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  take  into  con- 
sideration the  character  of  those  persons 
among  whom  this  custom  had  prevailed, 
and  among  whom  it  is  supposed  to  have 
ceased,  we  shall  have  sufficient  reason  to 
think  it  impossible  that  a  custom  of  this  na- 
ture should  be  abrogated,  and  they  not  op- 
pose a  single  word.  As  to  their  character, 
it  is  certain,  that,  a  few  only  accepted,  they 
were,  upon  the  whole,  the  deadly  enemies  of 
Christ  and  his  doctrine.  They  were  strongly 
attached  to  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  reli- 
gion. They  would  wrangle  for  a  rite,  quar- 
rel for  a  fast,  and  almost  fight  for  a  new 
moon.  Every  one  knows  what  disturbance 
they  made  in  the  church  of  God,  about  such 
things  as  these. 

Now  is  it  possible,  that  such  a  change 
could  be  brought  about,  and  among  such  a 
people,  in  a  manner  so  still  and  silent,  that 
in  all  the  New  Testament  we  do  not  read, 
that  they  ever  said  a  word  about  it,  for  or 
against:  No  priest  nor  publican;  no  phari- 
see,  lawyer,  or  libertine;  neither  pious  nor 
profane;  neither  zealous,  moderate,  or  luke- 
warm, in  all  the  land  of  Israel,  oppose  a  sin- 
gle sentence,  or  ask  a  reason  why.  But 
since  this  must  have  been  a  change  so  re- 
markable; and  they  among  whom  it  is  sup- 
posed to  have  happened,  not  the  most  mo- 
dest; how  came  they  to  be  so  silent,  so  shy? 


80 


ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 


What  made  them  so  passive,  so  peaceable, 
so  complying?  Nothing.  They  were  neither 
complying,  passive,  nor  peaceable,  nor  slow 
to  speak,  nor  slow  to  wrath,  when  any  old 
forms  were  invaded;  but  they  were  very 
much  so  about  the  change  in  question;  and 
the  true  reason  of  it  is,  it  never  took  place. 
There  is  another  evidence,  that  the  church- 
membership  of  infants  was  never  annulled  by 
God  or  man;  and  that  is  this: 

3.  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  take  special 
notice  of  infants,  and,  instead  of  excluding 
them,  they  speak  of  them  as  still  possessing 
a  right  to  membership  in  the  church  of  God. 

The  notice  taken  of  infants  by  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles,  I  call  special ;  because  it  is 
not  such  as  God  takes  of  his  creatures  in  a 
way  of  common  providence;  as  the  giving 
of  food  to  a  stranger,  the  satisfying  the  desire 
of  every  living  thing,  or  hearing  the  cry  of  a 
young  raven  when  he  calls  upon  him.  Such 
notice  as  this,  God  takes  of  all  his  creatures. 
But  that  which  I  now  mean  relates  to  mat- 
ters of  another  nature,  religious  matters,  the 
things  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  The  passages  I  shall  bring 
are  not  intended  to  prove  any  new  institu- 
tion respecting  infants,  for  nothing  of  this 
kind  took  place;  but  as  their  church-mem- 
bership had  been  long  settled,  1  only  mean 
to  show  that  our  Lord  speaks  of  them,  under 
that  idea,  as  the  acknowledged  members  of 
the  church  of  God.  And  hereby  I  mean  to 
evmce,  that   their  membership,  which  had 


OP  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


81 


been  long  established,  was  never  annulled  to 
the  present  day.     To  this  end  I  allege, 

I.  Luke  ix.  47,  48.  "  And  Jesus  took  a 
child,  and  set  him  by  him,  and  ["  when  he  had 
taken  him  in  his  arms,"  Mark  ix.  36.]  he 
said  unto  them,  Whosoever  shall  receive  this 
child,  in  my  name,  receiveth  me:  And  who- 
soever shall  receive  me,  receiveth  him  that 
sent  me:  For  he  that  is  least  among  you 
all,  the  same  shall  be  great."  In  this  pas- 
sage we  have  three  things  very  observable: 

1.  The  subject  spoken  of,  a  little  child. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  but  this  was  a  child 
in  regard  of  his  age;  as  the  circumstance  of 
our  Lord's  taking  him  in  his  arms,  makes 
this  certain  beyond  dispute.  And  it  is  also 
evident,  that  what  our  Lord  said  did  not  ap- 
ply to  this  child  alone,  as  though  something 
peculiar  to  himself  led  our  Lord  so  to  speak; 
since  he  makes  it  a  thing  general  and  com- 
mon to  other  children.  The  words  of  Mark 
are,  "  Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of  such 
children  in  my  name."  He  meant,  therefore, 
that  child  in  his  arms,  and  other  little  chil- 
dren like  him. 

2.  The  action  respecting  this  child.  "  Who- 
soever shall  receive  this  child  in  my  name." 
To  receive  a  person  is  to  treat  him  suitably 
to  his  character,  place,  and  station.  John  i. 
11.  "  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own 
received  him  not."  Rom.  xiv.  1.  "  Him  that 
is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye."  To  receive 
a  person  in  the  name  of  Christ,  is  to  treat 

8 


82  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 

him  as  one  belonging  to  Christ,  as  one  in 
visible  union  with  him,  as  a  member  of  that 
church,  of  which  he  is  the  head.  Matt.  x. 
40.  "  He  that  receiveth  you,  receiveth  me ; 
and  he  that  receiveth  me,  receiveth  him  that 
sent  me."  This  is  spoken  of  the  apostles  of 
Christ,  and  intends  a  treatment  suitable  to 
their  character,  and  the  relation  they  stood 
in  to  him.  So  John  xiii.  20.  Then  the 
meaning  is,  Whosoever  shall  receive  this 
child,  or  one  of  such  children,  in  my  name, 
i.  e.  as  persons  belonging  to  me,  and  in  visi- 
ble union  with  myself,  receiveth  me,  i.  e, 
treateth  me  as  the  visible  head  of  the  chiirch 
of  God. 

Whosoever  shall  receive  this  child,  or  one 
of  such  children,  in  my  name !  Remarkable 
phrase!  I  have  pondered  it  in  my  own  mind, 
and  wish  to  submit  it  to  any  casuist,  with 
this  question:  Is  it  possible  to  receive  a  per- 
son in  the  name  of  Christ,  without  consider- 
ing that  person  as  visibly  belonging  to  Christ? 
I  own,  that  to  me,  it  appears  impossible.  But 
as  Christ  knows  best  v/hat  his  own  words 
imply,  he  shall  determine  the  question.  Mark 
ix.  41.  "Whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of 
water  to  drink  in  my  name,  because  ye  belong 
to  Christ.'^  So  to  give  to  any  in  his  name,  is  to 
give  to  them,  because  they  belong  to  Christ. 
And  then,  when  Christ  speaks  of  receiving 
little  children  in  his  name,  we  are  to  consider 
little  children  as  visibly  belonging  to  him. 
And  if  they  visibly  belong  to  him,  who  is 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  83 

head  of  the  church,  it  is  because  they  visi- 
bly belong  to  that  church,  of  which  he  is 
head. 

3.  The  reason  of  this  action.  This  reason 
is  twofold:  1.  As  it  respected  God  and  Christ; 
"  Whosoever  shall  receive  this  child  in  my 
name,  receiveth  me;  and  whosoever  receiveth 
me,  receiveth  him  that  sent  me."  The  force 
of  the  reason  lies  in  this;  receiving  little  chil- 
dren in  Christ's  name,  i.  e.  treating  them  as 
visibly  belonging  to  him,  is  showing  a  proper 
regard  to  God  and  Christ.  But  why  should 
this  be  considered  as  showing  a  proper  regard 
to  God  ?  I  answer,  I  know  no  reason  in  the 
world  but  one  :  and  that  is,  because  God  had 
long  before  constituted  infants  visible  mem- 
bers of  his  own  church,  and  still  continued 
to  them  the  same  place  and  privilege.  2.  As 
it  respected  themselves.  "  He  that  is  least 
among  you  all,  the  same  shall  be  great.'' 
This  reason  suggests  three  things:  1.  our 
Lord  speaks  of  his  disciples,  in  a  collective 
capacity,  as  forming  a  religious  society  or 
church;  "He  that  is  least  among  you  all." 
And  this,  indeed,  was  truly  the  case;  for 
these  disciples,  with  others,  were  branches 
in  the  olive-tree;  and  such  branches  as  were 
not  broken  off.  2.  Our  Lord  speaks  of  them, 
as  having  little  children  in  their  society  or 
church;  "  He  that  is  least  among  you  all,  the 
same  shall  be  great."  Now,  though  it  is 
true,  that  adults  on  some  accounts  may  be 
called  little  children,  yet  the  term  [least]  can- 
not mean  adults  in  this  place;  because  this  is 


84  AKGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

given  as  a  reason  why  they  should  receive 
this  little  child.  For  what  God  will  do  for 
an  adult  can  be  no  motive  to  the  receiving 
an  infant.  If  we  say,  God  can  make  that 
adult,  which  you  deem  very  little,  to  become 
great;  therefore  receive  this  little  child':  this 
would  be  no  reason  at  all.  But  if  it  be  taken 
thus;  God  can  make  the  least  child  in  your 
community  to  become  great,  therefore  receive 
this  little  child;  the  reasoning  will  be  good, 
and  becoming  the  wisdom  of  Christ.  And 
this  is  no  more  than  a  plain  fact;  children 
were  at  this  time  the  acknowledged  members 
of  the  church  of  God.  3.  Our  Lord  speaks 
thus,  to  induce  them  to  pay  a  proper  regard 
to  children.  "The  least  among  you  shall 
become  great;  therefore  receive  this  child  in 
my  name.''  Receiving  may  respect  the  first 
act  of  recognizing  a  person  a  member  of  a 
church;  or  all  subsequent  acts,  by  which  we 
treat  them  as  such.  Our  Lord's  expression 
is  applicable  to  both,  and  enjoins  both  on  his 
disciples.  This  is  one  instance  of  special  no- 
tice taken  of  infants,  in  which  they  are  con- 
sidered as  holding  a  place  in  the  church  of 
God. 

Mark  x.  14.  "  But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he 
was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them, 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me, 
and  forbid  them  not:  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  God." 

The  persons  who  were  brought,  are  said 
by  Mark  to  have  been  young  children,  our 
Lord  calls  them  little  children,  and  Luke 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 


85 


calls  them  infants.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
but  they  were  such  as  were  in  an  infantile 
state.  The  design,  for  which  they  were 
brought,  is  said  to  be,  that  he  should  put  his 
hands  on  them,  and  pray.  Some  of  the  Bap- 
tists suppose  they  were  diseased  children,  and 
were  brought  to  our  Lord  to  be  healed;  but 
of  this  there  is  nothing  said.  It  is  most  likely 
they  were  brought  to  receive  the  benediction 
of  Christ.  Mark  x.  16. 

That  this  passage  regards  infants,  as  con- 
tinuing in  a  state  of  church-membership, 
which  is  all  I  produce  it  for,  will  appear  by 
considering  of  whom  our  Lord  spake,  and 
what  he  spake  of  them. 

L  Of  whom  he  spake.  There  can  be  very 
little  difficulty  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  as 
we  are  plainly  told,  what  the  persons  were 
who  were  brought  to  him,  and  of  whom  it 
it  is  evident  he  spake.  Some  of  the  Baptists 
remarkmg  upon  the  phrase  ton  toioutdn,  of 
such,  or  of  such  like,  affirm  that  our  Lord 
meant  adults  of  a  child-like  disposition,  and 
that  of  these,  and  not  of  the  infants,  he  said, 
Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  con- 
struction, which  indeed  has  nothing  to  sup- 
port it,  will  appear  very  uncouth,  when  we 
consider  these  words  of  our  Lord,  as  a  reason 
for  bringing  and  permitting  the  little  children 
to  come  to  him:  Suffer  them  to  come  unto 
me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  But 
this  exposition,  besides  that  it  makes  our 
Lord  speak  obscurely,  represents  him  as  giv- 
ing a  reason  quite  distant  from  the  subject  he 


86 


ARGUMENTS    ON   THE    SIDE 


was  upon.  For  whereas  a  reason  for  coming 
should  be  taken  from  those  who  are  to  come, 
and  not  from  others;  this  exposition  makes 
our  Lord  say,  Suffer  these  to  come,  because 
those  belong  to  the  kingdom.  To  say,  adults 
belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  no  good 
reason  for  bringing  infants  to  Christ.  It  is  a 
much  better  one  to  say,  Suffer  these  little 
children  to  come,  because  these  little  children, 
and  others  Uke  them,  belong  to  the  kingdom 
of  God.  But  if  it  be  said,  others  belong  to 
the  kingdom  of  God,  because  they  are  like 
infants,  then  infants  must  belong  to  the  king- 
dom of  God  because  they  are  like  them.  The 
truth  is,  our  Lord  evidently  speaks  of  infants 
as  he  had  done  before,  in  the  preceding  pas- 
sage. 

2.  What  he  spake  of  them:  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God;  that  is,  such  belong  to  the 
kingdom.  Our  inquiry  is,  what  kingdom  did 
our  Lord  mean?  was  U  the  church,  or  a  state 
of  glory?  If  the  Lord  meant  the  church,  then 
he  has  asserted  what  I  contend  for,  that  in- 
fants were  spoken  of  by  him,  as  members  of 
the  church;  and,  therefore,  the  fact  is  esta- 
blished. But  the  Baptists  in  general  under- 
stand this  of  a  state  of  glory,  and  allow  in- 
fants to  belong  to  that,  but  deny  that  they 
belong  to  the  church.  This,  indeed,  is  grant- 
ing the  greater,  and  denying  the  less;  and 
therefore  an  argumeut  may  be  taken,  from 
what  they  grant,  to  destroy  what  they  deny; 
that  is,  an  argument  a  majore  ad  minus^  from 
the  greater  to  the  less.     If  infants  belong  to 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 


87 


a  state  of  glory,  which  is  the  greater;  then 
much  more  do  they  belong  to  a  church-state, 
which  is  the  less.  Besides,  as  the  institution 
of  a  church  is  a  dispensation  of  God,  which 
leads  to  glory,  it  is  absurd  to  grant  persons 
a  place  in  glory,  and  at  the  same  time  deny 
them  a  place  in  that  dispensation  which  leads 
to  it. 

Though  to  affirm,  that  our  Lord,  by  the 
kingdom  of  God,  intended  a  state  of  glory, 
does  not  militate  against,  but  rather  concludes 
for  the  church-membership  of  infants;  there 
are  some  considerations  which  serve  to  evince 
that  our  Lord  intended  the  church  on  earth 
chiefly,  if  not  only;  for  I  have  some  doubt 
whether  he  did  not  intend  both,  though  the 
church  more  particularly.  It  is  to  be  observ- 
ed, in  the  first  place,  that  these  words,  "  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  were  spoken 
to  the  apostles,  as  a  reason  for  their  suffering, 
and  a  rebuke  for  their  hindering,  little  chil- 
dren to  come  unto  him.  Now  it  is  always 
more  natural,  when  we  intend  to  reason  with, 
or  rebuke  any  person,  to  fix  upon  that  as  a 
reason,  which  is  most  familiar  to  him.  The 
apostles  were  well  acquainted  with  the  mem- 
bership of  infants  in  the  church,  as  a  practice 
which  had  prevailed  in  their  nation  for  many 
centuries;  whereas  they  could  know  but  little 
of  the  state  of  infants  with  respect  to  glory. 
Now  as  the  reason,  why  these  little  children 
should  be  suffered  to  come,  v\ras,  that  they 
belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  God;  and  as  this 
was  designed,  at  the  same  time,  as  a  rebuke; 


88  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

it  must  be  evident,  that  our  Lord  intended 
that  idea  of  the  kingdom  with  which  they 
were  most  familiar.  For  had  it  been  meant 
of  a  state  of  glory,  the  apostles  might  very 
well  have  pleaded  ignorance;  but  they  could 
not  be  ignorant  that  infants  belonged  to  the 
church,  and  therefore  the  reproof  could  not 
come  home  to  them,  but  under  that  idea. 
For  in  that,  they  acted  contrary  to  a  principle 
they  knew,  in  keeping  those,  who  belonged 
to  the  church,  from  the  church's  Head. 

It  may  be  further  remarked,  that  it  is  high- 
ly reasonable  to  conclude,  that  our  Lord  in- 
tended the  same  reason,  for  infants  coming 
to  him,  as  he  had  urged  to  others,  for  their 
receiving  them.  Others  were  to  receive  in- 
fants in  his  name;  and  with  this  to  enforce 
it,  that  whosoever  received  them  in  his  name, 
received  him,  &c.  This  expression  denotes 
a  relation  to  himself;  as  if  he  had  said,  Re- 
ceive them,  because  they  belong  to  me,  re- 
ceive them  as  you  would  a  disciple.  This 
is  a  reason  that  has  respect  to  present  rela- 
tion ;  and  if  it  be  natural  to  suppose,  that  our 
Lord  gives  a  similar  reason  for  their  coming 
to  him,  the  kingdom  of  God  will  not  mean  a 
future  state  of  blessedness,  but  a  present 
church  state,  to  which  they  belong.  More- 
over, it  may  be  said  with  much  more  truth 
of  infants  in  general,  and  it  is  of  such  our 
Lord  speaks,  that  they  belong  to  a  church  on 
earth,  than  to  a  state  of  glory;  because  many 
may  belong  to  the  former  who  do  not  belong 
to  the  latter.    And  whereas  it  cannot  be  said 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  89 

of  infants,  as  such,  that  they  belong  to  a  state 
of  glory,  for  then  all  would  be  saved,  because 
all  have  been  infants;  but  it  could  be  said  of 
infants,  as  infants,  where  our  Lord  was,  that 
they  belonged  to  the  church  on  earth. 

I  only  introduce  this  to  show,  that  our 
Lord,  in  saying.  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God,  did  recognize  infants  as  church-nriem- 
bers.  And  against  this  sense  of  the  kingdom, 
as  meaning  the  church,  the  Baptists  bring 
only  one  objection,  viz.  the  incapacity  of  in- 
fants. But  this  is  removed  by  the  practice 
of  many  centuries;  which  shows  that  God 
does  not  judge  of  incapacity,  after  the  man- 
ner of  men.  What  our  Lord  said,  as  it  proves 
the  membership  of  infants,  which  is  all  I 
brought  it  for,  so  it  is  no  more  than  what 
was  familiar  to  the  whole  nation. 

Acts  ii.  38,  39.  "  Then  Peter  said  unto 
them.  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of 
you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ;  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto 
you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are 
afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call." 

As  this  passage  is  only  brought  forward  to 
show,  that  infants  are  spoken  of  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  church-members,  agreeable  to 
the  ancient  dispensation  of  God;  I  shall  con- 
fine myself  to  these  three  conclusions. 

L  That  the  phrase,  '^to  you,  and  to  your 
children,"  intends  adults  and  infants. 

IL  That  this  promise  must  comprehend 


90 


ARGUMENTS    ON   THE    SIDE 


adults  and  infants,  wherever  it  comes,  even 
as  long  as  God  shall  continue  his  word  lo  us. 

III.  That  infants  are  placed  in  the  same 
relation  to  baptism,  as  they  were  of  old  to 
circumcision. 

These  I  shall  now  proceed  to  evince ;  and 
in  the  first  place  I  affirm, 

I.  That  the  phrase,  To  you  and  to  your 
children,  intends  adults  and  infants.  This 
may  be  proved  by  considering, 

1.  The  resemblance  between  this  promise 
and  that  in  Gen.  xvii.  7.  "  To  be  a  God  unto 
thee,  and  unto  thy  seed  after  thee."  The 
resemblance  between  these  two  lies  in  two 
things;  1.  Each  stands  connected  with  an  or- 
dinance, by  which  persons  were  to  be  admit- 
ted into  church-fellowship;  the  one  by  cir- 
cumcision, the  other  by  baptism. 

Both  agree  in  phraseology;  the  one  is,  "to 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed;"  the  other  is,  <'  to  you 
and  to  your  children."  Now  every  one 
knows  that  the  word  seed  means  children; 
and  that  children  means  seed;  and  that  they 
are  precisely  the  same.  From  these  two 
strongly  resembling  features,  viz,  their  con- 
nexion with  a  similar  ordinance,  and  the 
sameness  of  the  phraseology,  I  infer,  that  the 
subjects  expressed  in  each,  are  the  very  same. 
And  as  it  is  certain  that  parents  and  infants 
were  intended  by  the  one;  it  must  be  equally 
certain  that  both  are  intended  by  the  other. 

2.  The  sense,  in  which  the  speaker  must 
have  understood  the  sentence  in  question. 
The  promise  is,  to  you  and  to  your  children. 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  91 

In  order  lo  know  this,  we  must  consider 
who  the  speaker  was,  and  from  what  source 
he  received  his  religious  knowledge.     The 
Apostle,  it  is  evident,  was  a  Jew,  and  brought 
up  in  the  Jewish  church.    He  knew  the  prac- 
tice of  that  church,  with  respect  to  those  who 
were  admitted  to  be  its  members.    He  knew, 
that  he  himself  had  been  admitted  in  infancy, 
and  that  it  was  the  ordinary  practice  of  the 
church  to  admit  infants  to  membership.    And 
he  likewise  knew,  that  in  this  they  acted  on 
the  authority  of  that  place,  where  God  pro- 
mises to  Abraham,  "  to  be  a  God  unto  him, 
and  to  his  seed."     Now  if  the  Apostle  knew 
all  this;  in  what  sense  could  he  understand 
the  term  children,  as  distinguished  from  their 
parents?    I  have  said,  that  children,  [tekna] 
and   seed,  [sperma']  mean  the  same  thing. 
And  as  the  Apostle  well  knew,  that  the  term 
seed  intended  infants,  though  not  mere  in- 
fants only;  and  that  infants  were  circumcised, 
and  received  into  the  church,  as  being   the 
seed;  what  else  could  he  understand,  by  the 
term  children,  when   mentioned   with  their 
parents?    Those  who  will  have  the  Apostle 
to  mean,  by  the  term  children,  adult  posteri- 
ty only,  have  this  infelicity  attending  them, 
that   they   understand    the   term  differently 
from  all  other  men ;  and  this  absurdity  that 
they  attribute  to  the  Apostle  a  sense  of  the 
word,   which   to  him   must  have   been   the 
most  unfamiliar  and  forced.     And,  therefore, 
that  sense  of  the  word  for  which  they  con- 
tend, is  the  most  unlikely  of  all  to  be  the  true 


92  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

one,  because  it  is  utterly  improbable  that  a 
person  should  use  a  word  in  that  sense  which 
to  him,  and  to  all  the  world  beside,  was  al- 
together unfamiliar. 

3.  In  what  sense  his  hearers  must  have 
understood  him,  when  he  said,  "The  pro- 
mise is  to  you,  and  to  your  children." 

The  context  informs  us,  that  many  of  St. 
Peter's  hearers,  as  he  himself  was,  were 
Jews.  They  had  been  accustomed  for  many 
hundred  years  to  receive  infants,  by  circum- 
cision, into  the  church;  and  this  they  did,  as 
before  observed,  because  God  had  promised 
to  be  a  God  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed. 
They  had  understood  this  promise,  to  mean 
parents  and  their  infant  offspring;  and  this 
idea  was  become  familiar  by  the  practice  of 
many  centuries.  What  then  must  have  been 
their  views,  when  one  of  their  own  com- 
munity says  to  them,  "The  promise  is  to 
you,  and  to  your  children?"  If  their  prac- 
tice of  receiving  infants  was  founded  on  a 
promise  exactly  similar,  as  it  certainly  was; 
how  could  they  possibly  understand  him,  but 
as  meaning  the  same  thing,  since  he  himself 
used  the  same  mode  of  speech?  This  must 
have  been  the  case,  unless  we  admit  this  ab- 
surdity, that  they  understood  him  in  a  sense 
to  which  they  had  never  been  accustomed. 

How  idle  a  thing  it  is,  in  a  Baptist,  to 
come  with  a  lexicon  in  his  hand,  and  a  criti- 
cism in  his  head,  to  inform  us  that  tekna, 
children,  means  posterity!  Certainly  it  does, 
and  so  means  the   youngest  infants.     The 


OF  INFANT    BAPTISM.  93 

verb  tikto,  from  which  it  comes,  signifies  to 
bring  forth,  i.  e.  the  offspring.  And  are  not 
infants  of  that  number?  But  the  Baptists 
will  have  it  that  tekna^  children,  in  this 
place,  means  only  adult  posterity.  And,  if 
so,  the  Jews  to  whom  he  spoke,  unless  they 
understood  him  in  a  way  in  which  it  was 
morally  impossible  they  should,  would  in- 
fallibly have  understood  him  wrong.  Cer- 
tainly all  men,  when  acting  freely,  will  un- 
derstand words  in  that  way  which  is  most 
familiar  to  them;  and  nothing  could  be  more 
familiar  to  the  Jews,  than  to  understand  such 
a  speech,  as  Peter's,  to  mean  adults  and  in- 
fants. So  that  if  the  Jews,  the  awakened 
Jews,  had  apprehended  the  Apostle  to  mean 
only  adults,  when  he  said,  "  To  you  and 
your  children;'^  they  must  have  had  an 
understanding  of  such  a  peculiar  construc- 
tion, as  to  make  that  sense  of  a  word,  which 
to  them  was  totally  unnatural  and  forced,  to 
become  familiar  and  easy. 

We  should  more  certainly  come  at  the 
truth,  if,  instead  of  idly  criticising,  we  could 
fancy  ourselves  Jews,  and  in  the  habit  of  cir- 
cumcising infants,  and  receiving  them  into 
the  church.  And  then,  could  we  imagine 
one  of  our  own  nation  and  religion,  to  ad- 
dress us  in  the  very  language  of  Peter  in 
this  text,  "The  promise  is  to  you  and  your 
children;'^  let  us  ask  ourselves,  as  in  the 
sight  of  God,  whether  we  could  ever  suppose 
him  to  mean  adult  posterity  only  ?  Or  if,  in- 
stead of  putting  ourselves  in  the  situation  of 


94  ARGUMENTS   ON  THE   SIDE 

Jews,  we  should  suppose  the  Apostle  to  ad- 
dress the  members  of  the  establishment,  in 
the  same  phraseology,  as  he  did  the  Jews, 
can  any  person  doubt,  whether  they  would 
understand  him  to  mean  adults  and  infants? 
It  is  certainly  impossible.  And  why?  Be- 
cause they  have  been  for  ages  in  the  habit  of 
receiving  infants  into  the  church.  Just  so  it 
was  with  the  Jews  when  the  apostle  address- 
ed them;  and,  therefore,  they  could  no  more 
have  understood  him,  as  meaning  to  exclude 
infants,  than  the  members  of  the  establish- 
ment would  by  the  use  of  the  same  phrase. 

I  have  been  endeavouring  to  prove  that 
both  Peter,  who  spoke,  and  the  Jews,  who 
were  his  hearers,  must  have  understood  the 
promise  in  the  text  to  mean  adults  and  in- 
fants; because  such  a  meaning  would  be  to 
them  the  most  natural  and  obvious,  both 
from  their  own  habit  and  practice,  and  from 
its  exact  resemblance  to  that  promise  on 
which  their  practice  was  founded  and  by 
which  their  habit  was  formed.  But  since 
Mr.  Booth  and  all  the  Baptists  will  have  it 
to  mean  no  such  thing,  I  shall  only  say,  as 
Mr.  B.  does  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Williams, 
page  274,  "  Then  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  might 
well  say,  though  a  man,  accustomed  to  satis- 
fy himself  with  the  obvious  and  natural 
meaning  of  a  sentence,  does  not  easily  shake 
off  his  habit,  yet  a  true-bred  lawyer  never 
contents  himself  with  this  sense  when  there  is 
another  to  be  found."  "  My  opponent,"  says 
Mr.  B.  to  Dr.  W.  "  seems  to  have  imbibed  the 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  95 

spirit  of  Dr.  Johnson's  true-bred  lawyer;  for 
he  cannot  be  at  all  content  with  the  obvious 
and  natural  meaning,  &c."    Mutato  nomine, 

4'C.     This  is  true  of  Mr.  Booth. 1  am  to 

prove  in  the  next  place, 

II.  That  this  promise  must  comprehend 
adults  and  infants  wherever  it  comes,  let  it 
come  wherever  it  may. 

The  Apostle,  in  applying  this  promise,  dis- 
tinguishes those  to  whom  it  is  to  apply  into 
present  and  absent.  The  first  class  were  his 
hearers;  the  second  he  describes  two  ways — 
all  that  are  afar  off — as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call.  To  each  of  these  classes, 
viz.  those  who  were  present,  and  those  who 
were  absent,  he  applies  the  promise  in  the 
text.  To  those  who  were  present,  the  pro- 
mise is,  to  you  and  to  your  children; — to 
those  afar  off,  and  the  promise  is  to  you  and 
to  your  children; — to  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call,  the  promise  is  to  you  and 
to  your  children.  Let  the  promise  come  to 
what  persons  soever  it  may,  it  must  come  to 
them  and  to  their  children;  because  the  pro- 
mise must  be  the  same  wherever  God  shall 
send  it.  I  have  already  proved  that  the 
words  [you  and  children]  mean  adults  and 
infants;  and  both  being  in  the  promise,  it 
must  therefore  belong  to  each:  To  you  adults 
and  to  your  infants,  who  are  present;  to  you 
adults,  who  are  afar  off,  and  to  your  infants; 
to  as  many  adults  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call,  and  their  infants.    That  this  is  true  may 


96  ARGUMENTS    ON    THE    SIDE 

be  proved  by  considering  the  essence  or  na- 
ture of  the  promise. 

There  are  two  things  which  enter  into  the 
essence  of  a  promise:  It  must  contain  some 
good — it  miist  be  made  to  some  person  or 
persons.  That  these  two  belong  to  the  es- 
sence of  a  promise  appears  by  this,  that  if 
either  be  taken  away,  there  can  be  no  pro- 
mise— e.  g.  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to 
thy  seed;  the  good  in  this  promise  is  God 
himself — the  persons  were  Abraham  and  his 
seed.  If  the  good  be  taken  away,  it  will  then 
be  no  promise;  I  will — to  thee  and  to  thy 
seed.  The  case  will  be  the  same  if  the  per- 
sons are  taken  away;  I  will  be  a  God — in 
either  case  it  is  no  promise.  So  when  a  pro- 
mise is  made  to  different  persons,  one  person 
is  as  essential  to  the  promise  as  the  other — 
e.  g.  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed;  the  promise  is  as  much  to  the  seed  as 
to  Abraham,  and  as  much  to  Abraham  as  to 
the  seed  ;  because  both  are  essential  to  the 
promise. 

Now  the  Apostle,  expressing  the  essence 
or  nature  of  the  promise  in  the  text,  as  it  re- 
spects the  objects,  says,  "  The  promise  is  to 
you  and  to  your  children."  Both  parts, 
therefore,  belong  to  the  promise ;  it  is  essen- 
tial to  the  promise  that  it  be — to  you; — it  is 
likewise  essential  to  it  that  it  be  to  your  chil- 
dren. And  the  case  being  so,  we  cannot  take 
away  either  part  without  violating  the  es- 
sence of  the  promise.  We  have  no  more 
right  to  say,  The  promise  is  to  you,  but  not 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  97 

to  your  children,  than  the  promise  is  to  yonr 
children,  but  not  to  yon;  for  as  it  was  the 
design  of  God  that  the  promise  should  be  to 
both,  it  was  his  design  that  it  should  be  to 
their  children  as  truly  as  to  themselves.  And 
so  the  promise  must  be  to  Peter's  hearers 
and  their  children — to  all  that  are  afar  off, 
and  to  their  children — to  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call,  and  to  their  children, 
and  the  reason  is,  both  enter  into  the  essence 
of  the  promise.  So  when  God  said,  "  I  will 
be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed,"  it  would 
apply,  in  the  same  form,  "  to  thee  and  to  thy 
seed,"  to  every  man  and  every  generation 
of  men  of  the  offspring  of  Abraham,  as  long 
as  the  promise  was  in  force. 

Mr.  Booth  objects  to  this,  in  vol.  ii.  p.  355, 
and  says,  "  These  words  [as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call]  are,  as  plainly  as 
possible,  a  limiting  clause,  and  extend  a  re- 
strictive force  to  the  term,  children,  as  much 
as  to  the  pronoun,  you,  or  to  that  descriptive 
language,  all  that  are  afar  off."  To  this  I 
reply,  that  the  apostle  himself  did  not  make 
use  of  that  limit  which  Mr.  B.  says  is  so 
plain;  for  the  apostle  actually  spoke  to  those 
who,  in  Mr.  B.^s  sense,  were  already  awa- 
kened and  called;  and  then,  as  plainly  as  pos- 
sible, distinguishes  between  them  and  their 
children.  Now  if  the  apostle  addressed  those 
v/ho  were  already  called,  and  extended  the 
promise  beyond  them,  even  to  their  children, 
then  the  promise  was  not  limited  to  the  called. 
But  this  the  apostle  actually  did,  as  plainly 
9 


98  ARGUMENTS    ON   THE    SIDE 

as  words  could  express  it;  for  he  spoke  to 
those  who  were  pricked  in  their  heart,  and 
said,  "  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?" 
To  these  he  said,  "  The  promise  is  nnto  you'^ 
and,  instead  of  confining  it  to  them  only,  he 
extends  it  to  their  children  also;  and  so  passes 
over  that  limit  which  Mr.  B.  is  pleased  to  lay 
down.  And  as  the  apostle  extends  the  pro- 
mise beyond  the  called,  in  the  first  clause,  we 
must  follow  his  example,  and  extend  it  be- 
yond the  called  in  the  last  clause — Thus  the 
promise  is  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call,  and  to  their  children:  And  then 
Mr.  B.'s  limiting  clause  will  be  nothing  more 
than  a  very  lame  evasion. 

Notwithstanding  this,  there  is  some  truth 
in  Mr.  B.'s  idea  respecting  the  limiting  clause, 
though  he  himself,  by  misapplication,  has 
done  violence  to  that  truth.  That  clause  "to 
as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,"  is 
really  a  limiting  clause,  but  not  in  the  way 
Mr.  B.  supposes.  This,  like  every  other  pro- 
mise, has  two  limits,  and  these  two  are  fixed 
by  two  limiting  clauses:  One  limit  determines 
how  wide  the  promise  shall  extend;  the  other 
how  far  it  is  to  run — the  one  is  a  limit  of  la- 
titude, the  other  of  longitude.  The  limit  of 
latitude  extends  to  parents  and  children — that 
of  longitude  reaches  down  "  to  as  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  And  as  there 
is  a  perfect  harmony  between  these  two, 
there  is  no  need  to  destroy  the  one  in  order 
to  preserve  the  other;  for  both  limits  being 
settled  and  fixed,  that  of  latitude  which  ex- 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  99 

tends  to  parents  and  children,  must  continue 
firm,  till,  through  successive  ages,  it  comes 
down  to  that  of  longhude,  which  reaches  to 
as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call;  that 
is,  as  long  as  God  shall  continue  to  call,  the 
promise  shall  pertain  to  parents  and  children. 
Mr.  B.  therefore,  was  very  right  in  mak- 
ing this  a  limiting  clause,  for  so  it  really  is; 
but  he  was  very  wrong  when,  instead  of 
preserving  both,  he  set  one  limit  to  destroy 
the  other.  And  as  it  often  falls  out  that 
those,  who  do  violence  to  the  spirit  of  a  text, 
are  led  to  utter  some  rash  expression  against 
the  letter  of  it,  just  so  it  has  fallen  out  in  Mr. 
B.'s  case.  He  has  violated  one  limit  in  the 
text,  and  has  so  expressed  himself  as  to  ex- 
ceed all  limits.  In  vol.  ii.  p.  354,  he  has 
said,  "  There  is  nothing  said  about  the  pro- 
mise respecting  any  besides  those  who  were 
then  awakened.'^  Those  who  were  awaken- 
ed, are  distinguished  by  the  pronoun  "  you;'' 
and  it  is  certain  something  is  said  about  the 
promise  respecting  them.  But,  says  Mr.  B. 
"  There  is  nothing  said  about  the  promise 
respecting  any  besides."  Mr.  B.  should  not 
have  said  this  with  the  text  before  his  eyes. 
He  should  first  have  erased  that  clause  of  it, 
"and  to  your  children,''  and  not  have  left  it 
stand  to  contradict  him.  As  something  was 
said  about  the  promise  respecting  those  who 
were  awakened,  and  their  children  both,  he 
might  as  well  have  denied  it  respecting  the 
awakened,  as  to  deny  it  respecting  their  chil- 
dren; but  it  is  often  the  fate  of  those  who 


100  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 

oppose  truth,  to  lose  truth  and  modesty  to- 
gether. 

When  any  dispute  happens  on  a  place  of 
Scripture,  and  it  cannot  be  settled  from  the 
context,  the  best  way  is  to  pass  to  a  similar 
place,  and  observe  (if  there  be  any  plain  in- 
dications) in  what  manner  that  was  under- 
stood, and  what  practice  took  place  upon  it. 
That  passage,  to  which  the  text  bears  the 
strongest  resemblance,  is  Genesis  xvii.  7.  "  I 
will  establish  my  covenant — to  be  a  God 
unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed.'^  There  is  no 
place  in  Scripture  so  like  the  text  as  this; 
they  are  both  worded  in  the  same  way — "  to 
thee  and  to  thy  seed" — to  you  and  to  your 
children.  They  are  both  connected  with  a 
religious  ordinance.  By  seed,  which  is  the 
same  as  children,  was  meant  an  infant  of 
eight  days  old  and  upwards;  and  because  a 
promise  is  made  to  the  seed,  an  infant  be- 
comes the  subject  of  a  religious  ordinance. 
Now,  if  the  language  of  the  text  be  similar, 
and  if  it  be  connected  with  a  religious  ordi- 
nance, as  that  was,  what  better  comment  can 
be  made  upon  it,  than  what  that  passage 
suggests?  Why  should  not  the  ideas  be 
alike,  if  the  language  and  circumstances  be 
so?  The  reason  why  a  comparing  of  Scrip- 
ture with  Scripture  assists  the  understanding, 
is  this:  When  God  uses  the  same  kind  of 
language  in  two  places  of  Scripture,  and  the 
circumstances  are  alike,  it  is  plain  he  means 
to  be  understood  as  intending  similar  things. 
This  is  so  sure  a  rule  of  interpretation,  that 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  101 

we  are  not  afraid  of  venturing  our  everlast- 
ing interests  upon  it:  and,  by  adopting  it  in 
this  instance,  the  result  will  be  clearly  this: 
That  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  phrase,  "  you 
and  your  children,"  meant  adults  and  infants; 
that  these  are  placed  together  in  the  same 
promise;  and  that  the  promise,  thus  made  to 
adults  and  infants,  is  connected  with  baptism. 
And  from  hence  it  may  be  proved, 

III.  That  infants  are  placed  in  the  same 
relation  to  baptism,  as  they  were  of  old  to 
circumcision. 

Let  any  one  compare  the  two  places  to- 
gether, viz.  Gen.  xvii.  7.  9,  10,  and  this 
now  before  us,  and  he  will  see  that  parents 
and  children  are  united,  in  each  promise,  in 
the  same  way — there  the  promise  is,  "  to 
thee  and  to  thy  seed" — here  it  is,  "  to  you 
and  to  your  children;" — that  the  promise,  in 
each  place,  is  connected  with  a  religious  or- 
dinance. In  Genesis  it  is  connected  with  cir- 
cumcision— in  this  text  with  baptism; — that 
in  both  places,  the  ordinance  is  made  to  re- 
sult from  the  promise — the  one  is  set  down 
as  a  reason  for  the  other;  Gen.  xvii.  9. 
"Thoushalt  keep  my  covenant  therefore;" 
thaw  is,  because  God  had  given  a  promise. 
So  here,  "  Repent,  and  let  every  one  of  you, 
of  your's  be  baptized,  for  {gar,  because)  the 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children."  In- 
fants, therefore,  in  this  passage,  are  placed  in 
the  same  relation  to  baptism  as  they  were 
anciently  to  circumcision.  This  being  so,  1 
reason  thus: 


102  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 

When  a  positive  institute  is  connected 
with  a  promise,  all,  who  are  contained  in 
the  promise,  have  a  right  to  the  institute.  I 
think  any  one  may  be  compelled  to  grant 
this,  as  it  is  certainly  an  undeniable  truth; 
for  if  parents  must,  therefore,  be  circumcised 
because  they  are  included  in  the  promise, 
then,  as  infants  are  also  included  in  the  pro- 
mise, they  too  must  be  circumcised.  All 
this  is  evinced  by  the  history  of  circumcision, 
and  is  indeed  a  self-evident  case;  because  if 
a  promise  give  a  right  to  an  institute,  the  in- 
stitute must  belong  to  all  who  are  interested 
in  the  promise.  And,  therefore,  we  may  rea- 
son thus:  If  parents  must  be  baptized  be- 
cause the  promise  belongs  to  them,  then 
must  their  infants  be  baptized,  because  the 
promise  is  to  them  also.  This  mode  of  rea- 
soning is  the  more  certain,  as  it  is  confirmed, 
beyond  all  doubt,  by  the  divine  procedure; 
for  if  you  ask,  Who  were  to  be  circumcised? 
the  reply  is,  Those  to  whom  the  promise  was 
made.  If  you  inquire  again,  to  whom  was 
the  promise  made?  we  answer,  To  adults 
and  infants.  Again,  if  you  ask,  Who  are  to 
be  baptized?  the  answer  is.  Those  to  whom 
the  promise  is  made.  But  to  whom  is  it 
made?  The  apostle  says,  "To  you  and  to 
your  children."  Now  what  proof  more  di- 
rect can  be  made  or  desired  for  infant  bap- 
tism? 

From  these  premises  the  result  is  plainly 
this:  That  as  infants  stand,  in  this  text,  in 
the  same  relation  to  baptism  as  they  did  to 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


103 


circumcision,  their  right  to  the  one  must  be 
the  same  as  it  was  to  the  other.  The  case,  in 
both  instances,  stands  fairly  thus:  The  pro- 
mise connects  itself  with  the  ordinance;  that 
with  circumcision — this  with  baptism.  It 
also  connects  two  parties  together,  infants 
and  parents,  and  unites  them  both  to  that 
ordinance  with  which  itself  is  connected.  It 
is  by  virtue  of  the  union  of  the  promise  with 
the  ordinance,  that  those  who  have  an  inter- 
est in  the  one  have  a  right  to  the  other;  and 
when  two  parties,  parents  and  children,  are 
interested  in  the  same  promise,  and  that  pro- 
mise gives  a  right  to  the  ordinance,  it  gives 
the  same  right  to  both  the  parties  who  are 
interested  in  it.  And  hence,  as  parents  and 
children  are  interested  in  the  promise,  the 
right  of  the  children  to  the  ordinance  is  the 
same  as  that  of  parents. 

I  produce  these  three  passages  only  to 
show,  that  special  notice  is  taken  of  infants, 
and  that  they  are  spoken  of  agreeably  tb  the 
idea  of  their  church-membership.  In  Luke 
ix.  47,  48,  our  Lord  proposes  them  for  recep- 
tion in  his  name,  and  thereby  owns  them  as 
visibly  related  to  himself.  He  indicates  that 
the  reception  was  to  be  of  the  same  kind  as 
that  which  might  be  claimed  by  his  own  dis- 
ciples; and  that  receiving  them  as  visibly  re- 
lated to  himself,  i.  e.  in  his  name,  was  show- 
ing a  proper  respect  to  him,  and  to  his  Father 
who  sent  him:  "Whosoever  shall  receive 
this  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me;  and 
whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth  him 


104  ARGUMENTS  ON   THE  SIDE 

that  sent  me,"  &c.  In  Mark  x.  14,  our  Lord 
explicitly  declares  wliat  was  the  ground  of 
that  reception,  by  expressing  their  visible  re- 
lation to  the  church,  and  so  to  himself: — 
"Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God;"  as  such 
they  were  to  be  brought  to  him,  and  no  one 
was  to  forbid  them  to  come.  In  Acts  ii.  38, 
39,  infants  are  placed  in  the  same  relation  to 
baptism  as  they  were  before  to  circumcision. 
The  apostle  unites  them  with  their  parents 
in  the  promise,  and  connects  that  promise 
with  baptism;  thereby  copying  the  divine 
pattern  in  Genesis  xvii.  and  alloting  them 
the  same  station  with  respect  to  baptism,  as 
they  had  before  with  regard  to  circumcision. 

In  each  of  these  cases  infants  are  spoken 
of  agreeably  to  that  constitution  of  God,  by 
which  they  were  admitted  to  church-mem- 
bership, and  to  a  religious  ordinance.  And 
this  being  all  that  my  argument  requires,  I 
shall  proceed  to  notice  one  thing  more,  viz. 

IV.  The  historical  account  of  the  bap- 
tism of  households  as  recorded  in  the  Scrip- 
ture. 

The  instances  of  this  kind  are  three;  the 
family  of  Lydia,  Acts  xvi.  15;  the  family  of 
the  jailer,  Acts  xvi.  33;  and  that  of  Stepha- 
nas, 1  Cor.  i.  16.  The  case  of  the  jailer  and 
his  family  is  thus  described:  "And  he  took 
them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway.  And  when  he  had  brought 
them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before 
them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  105 

all  his  house,  eegalliasato  panoiki  pepi- 
steiikds  to  Theed.^^  He  rejoiced  domestical- 
ly, believing  in  God;  i.  e.  Ae,  believing  in 
God,  rejoiced  over  his  family.  Now,  as  the 
household  of  the  jailer  is  expressed  by  the 
phrase,  '^  all  his,  or  all  of  his,"  it  explains  the 
term  Oikos,  household,  or  family,  which  is 
used  in  the  two  other  instances :  so  then,  to 
baptize  a  man's  household  is  to  baptize  all 
his.  This  may  serve  as  a  pattern  of  primi- 
tive practice — he  and  all  his  were  baptized. 
But  whether  all  believed,  or  were  capable  of 
believing,  is  not  said,  no  mention  being  made 
of  any  one's  faith  but  his  own.  And  though 
I  do  not  consider  this  historic  account  as 
having  force  enough  of  itself  to  evince  the 
baptism  of  infants,  yet  there  are  two  con- 
siderations which  give  it  weight  on  that  side. 
(1.)  Its  agreement  with  that  practice,  in 
which  we  are  sure  infants  were  included:  I 
mean  the  practice  of  Abraham,  and  the 
Jews,  with  respect  to  circumcision.  This 
agreement  may  be  considered,  1.  In  the  prin- 
ciple which  led  to  the  practice.  Circumcision 
was  founded  on  this  promise  of  God,  "I  will 
— be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed.'^ 
Baptism  proceeds  on  this,  that  the  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  children;  and  in  this 
they  are  both  alike.  2.  In  the  practice  itself 
When  Abraham  received  circumcision,  his 
household  were  circumcised  with  him;  so 
the  jailer,  when  he  was  baptized,  all  his  were 
baptized  likewise.  Now,  when  we  discern 
two  cases  alike  in  principle  and  practice,  and 
10 


106  ARGUMENTS   ON  THE  SIDE 

are  sure  that  infants  were  included  in  the 
one,  we  then  very  naturally  are  led  to  con- 
clude, that  infants  must  be  intended  in  the 
other. 

(2.)  Its  concordance  with  the  hypothesis 
of  infant  baptism.  Such  accounts  as  these, 
have  a  favourable  aspect  on  the  sentiments 
of  Pa3dobaptists;  because  on  their  plan,  pro- 
vided they  were  placed  in  the  same  circum- 
stances as  the  apostles  were,  whose  lot  it 
was  to  preach  the  gospel  where  Christ  had 
not  been  named;  cases  of  a  like  nature  would 
very  frequently  occur.  Whereas,  on  the 
plan  of  the  Baptists,  if  placed  in  similar  cir- 
cumstances, though  we  might  hear  of  various 
persons  baptized  on  a  profession  of  faith;  we 
should  not  expect  to  hear  of  the  baptizing  of 
households;  or,  that  any  man,  and  all  his, 
were  baptized  straightway.  And  indeed, 
the  very  idea  of  baptizing  households,  and 
of  a  man,  and  all  his,  being  baptized  at  the 
same  time,  does  so  naturally  fall  in  with  the 
views  of  Paedobaptists,  that  I  am  inclined  to 
think  it  passes  with  the  common  people,  in- 
stead of  a  hundred  arguments.  For  though 
they  do  not  reason  by  mood  and  figure,  nei- 
ther do  they  confine  themselves  to  logical 
accuracy,  in  any  form;  yet  they  have  logic 
enough  to  see,  that  the  baptizing  of  a  man, 
and  all  his,  and  likewise  of  this  and  the  other 
household,  is  by  no  means  agreeable  to  the 
plan,  and  that  it  has  no  resemblance  to  the 
practice  of  the  Baptists. 

It  is  in  this  way,  I  consider  these  accounts 
of  baptizing  as  having  weight  in  the  present 


OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  107 

inquiry.  Here  are  facts  recorded,  relative  to 
baptizing;  I  take  these  facts,  and  compare 
them  with  the  proceedings  of  different  bap- 
tizers;  and  I  find  they  will  not  agree  to  one 
class,  but  very  well  with  the  other:  I,  there- 
fore, am  led  to  conclude,  that  that  class  of 
baptizers  agree  best  to  the  primitive  practice, 
to  whom  these  facts  will  best  agree.  For,  as 
the  practice  of  the  apostles  has  no  affinity 
with  that  of  the  Baptists,  it  is  very  reason- 
able to  infer,  that  their  views  of  the  subject 
could  not  be  the  same. 

This  being  the  last  corroborating  argument 
I  mean  to  bring,  I  will  collect  the  force  of  the 
whole  into  one  view.  The  whole  defence  of 
infants  rests  on  two  arguments; — 1.  That  God 
did  constitute  in  his  church  the  membership 
of  infants,  and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  re- 
ligious ordinance.  2.  That  the  right  of  in- 
fants to  church-membership  was  never  taken 
away:  the  consequence  of  which  is,  that  their 
right  to  membership  continues  to  the  present 
moment.  The  first  of  these  arguments  is 
granted  by  the  Baptists  themselves.  The 
other  I  have  evinced  from  five  topics:  1. 
From  God's  dispensation  towards  the  Gen- 
tiles, in  forming  them  into  a  church  state.  2. 
That  God  never  did,  by  any  law,  take  away 
that  right  which  had  been  before  granted  to 
infants.  3.  That  none  of  the  Jews  had  any 
apprehension  of  the  rejection  of  infants,  which 
they  must  have  had,  if  infants  had  been  re- 
jected. 4.  That  Jesus  Christ  spake  of  them 
as  visibly  belonging  to  the  church,  and  to 
himself,  as  the  Head  of  the  church:  and  that 


108  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  SIDE 

the  apostle  Peter  placed  them  in  the  same 
relation  to  baptism,  as  they  had  been  before 
to  circumcision.  5.  That  the  apostle  Paul, 
in  baptizing  whole  families,  acted  agreeably 
to,  and  so  evinced  the  validity  of,  all  the  pre- 
ceding arguments. 

The  evident  result  of  the  whole  is,  that 
infants, according  to  divine  appointment,have 
a  right  to  church-membership,  to  the  present 
hour.  Then,  the  only  question  that  remains, 
and  by  answering  of  which,  I  shall  be  brought 
to  the  close  of  the  inquiry,  is  this:  Have  in- 
fants (any  infants,  for  I  take  them  indefinite- 
ly) any  right  to  Christian  baptism?  To  this 
1  reply,  1.  That  those  persons  who  have  a 
right  to  be  members,  should  certainly  be  ad- 
mitted to  membership;  i.  e.  solemnly  recog- 
nized. And  the  reason  is,  because  every  one 
should  have  his  right.  2.  If  persons,  who 
have  a  right  to  be  members,  should  be  re- 
ceived to  membership;  then  they  are  to  be 
received,  either  without  baptism,  or  with  it. 
I  suppose  none  will  say,  they  are  to  be  re- 
ceived without  baptism;  for  then,  if  one  may 
be  so  received,  so  may  all,  and  thus  baptism 
will  be  exclvided.  I  expect  no  opposition 
from  a  Baptist  in  this  place.  For  if  the  right 
of  infants  to  membership  be  once  evinced, 
the  opposition  of  a  Baptist  is  over.  And 
therefore,  if  he  be  able  to  do  any  thing  in  this 
controversy,  it  must  be  done  before  it  comes 
to  this.  On  the  other  hand,  if  no  person  is 
to  be  received  to  membership  without  bap- 
tism; then  every  one  who  should  be  received, 
must  of  necessity  be  baptized.     And  so  the 


OP  INFANT  BAPTISM.  109 


conclusion  of  the  whole  will  be  this:  Since' 
infants,  therefore,  have  a  right  to  member- 
ship, and  all  who  have  such  right  must  be 
received  as  members,  and  none  should  be 
received  without  being  baptized:  then  it  fol- 
lows, that  as  infants  have  a  right  to  be  re- 
ceived, they  must  also  have  a  right  to  be 
baptized;  because  they  cannot  be  received^ 
without  baptism. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Having  advanced  what  I  judged  essential 
on  both  sides,  I  will  now,  agreeably  to  my 
design,  give  the  reader  a  scheme  of  the  whole. 
By  this  scheme  the  reader  will  be  able  to 
discover  what  is  common  to  both  sides,  and 
what  is  the  neat  force  of  each.  It  was  in 
this  way,  the  subject  presented  itself  to  my 
mind,  when  I  was  led  a  second  time  to  take 
it  under  consideration.  And  I  persuade  my- 
self, that,  by  adopting  this  method,  the  reader 
will  be  more  capable  of  judging,  in  this  con- 
troverted question,  which  side  of  the  two  is 
the  stronger,  and  consequently  which  is  the 
true  one.  I  will  place  the  whole  on  one 
page,  that  the  reader  may  have  it  at  once 
under  his  eye.  I  shall  place  those  Scriptures, 
that  weigh  equal  on  both  sides,  at  the  top  of 
the  page;  and  the  arguments  against  infant 
baptism  in  one  column,  and  those  for  their 
baptism  in  the  other.  I  do  this,  because  I 
know  of  no  method  more  fair,  or  more  cal- 
culated to  lead  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 


110 


SCHEME    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY 


A  Scheme  of  the  Controversy  on  Baptism. 

I.  Those  places  of  Scripture  which  are  common  to  both 
sides,  viz.  Baptists  and  Paedobaptists.  Matt.  iii.  6.  "And 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins." 
Mark  xvi.  16.  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved."  Acts  ii.  41.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received 
liis  word,  were  baptized."  Acts  viii.  27.  "  And  Philip 
said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest," 

&.C. 

N.  B.  Ttiese  places,  and  others  of  the  same  hind,  as  they 
prove  the  haptism  of  an  adult  to  he  right,  are  expressive  of 
the  sentiment  of  Baptists  and  Pcedobaptists,  with  respect 
to  an  adult  sulject:  For  boih  think  it  right  to  baptize  an 
adult.  And  as  they  prove  equally  on  both  sides,  they  can- 
not  be  urged  by  either  party  against  the  other. 

II.  Those  arguments  which  are  peculiar  to  each,  com- 
pared. 

N.  B.  The  question  is  not  of  adults;  in  this  both  are 
agreed  :  "  But,  Are  infants  to  be  baptized  ?" 


ARGUMKNTS    AGAINST 
INFANT  BAPTISM. 

1.  Whoever  has  a 
right  to  a  positive  or- 
dinance must  be  ex- 
pressly mentioned  as 
having  that  right;  but 
infants  are  not  so 
mentioned,  with  re- 
spect to  baptism : 
Therefore  infants  are 
not  to  be  baptized. 

2.  The  Scriptures 
require  faith  and  re- 
pentance in  order  to 
baptism ;  but  infants 
have  not  faith  or  re- 
pentance :  Therefore 
infants  are  not  proper 
subjects  of  baptism. 


ARGUMENTS   FOR    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

1.  God  has  constituted  in  his 
church  the  membership  of  Infants, 
and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  re- 
ligious rite. 

2.  TJie  church-membership  of 
Infants  was  never  set  aside  by  God 
or  man ;  and  consequently  con- 
tinues in  force  to  the  present  day. 

N.  B.  The  Baptists  admit  the 
first.  The  other  is,  by  a  variety 
of  evidence,  clearly  evinced. 

CoroU. — As  God  has  constituted 
infants  church  members,  they 
should  be  received  to  membership^ 
because  God  has  constituted  it. 

Dilemma. — Since  infants  must 
be  received  to  membership,  they 
7nust  be  received  without  baptism, 
or  with  it :  But  none  must  be  re- 
ceived without  baptism;  and,  there- 
fore, as  infants  must  be  received, 
they  must  of  necessity  be  baptized. 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  HI 

I  shall  now  only  make  a  few  remarks  on 
this  scheme  of  the  controversy,  and  so  con- 
clude this  part  of  the  subject. 

1.  At  the  top  of  the  page,  I  have  cited  some 
passages  of  Scripture,  which  support  the  sen- 
timent of  both  parties,  that  is,  the  propriety 
of  baptizing  an  adult  professing  faith,  &c. 
These,  and  such  like   Scriptures,  which  for 
want  of  room  I  have  not  set  down,  prove  as 
much  on  one  side  as  on  the  other;  and,  there- 
fore, I  have  said  they  are  common  to  both 
parties.     My  design  in  placing  them  at  the 
head  of  the  Scheme,  is  to  detect  an  error  in- 
cident to  Baptists  in  general;  namely,  a  sup- 
position that  such  texts  prove  only  on  their 
side,  and  against  the  sentiments  of  Psedo- 
baptists.      I    have   observed    this   error,  in 
every  Baptist  with  whom  I  have  conversed, 
both  before  and  since  my  present  sentiments 
have  been  known.     I  once  asked  a  worthy 
Baptist  minister,  what  he  thought  were  the 
strongest  arguments  against  Psedobaptists? 
He  immediately  had  recourse  to  such  pas- 
sages as  are  set  down  in  the  Scheme.    I  told 
him,  that  these  were  so  far  from  being  the 
strongest,  that  they  were  no  arguments  at  all 
against  Peedobaptists;  but  rather  proved  on 
their  side,  in  common  with  Baptists.     My 
friend  wondering  at  this,  I  observed,  that 
Psedobaptists  as  well  as  Baptists  held  adult 
baptism;  and  as  these  passages  only  prove 
adult  baptism,  they  prove  nothing  more  than 
what  is  held  by  both.     When  I  had  made 
the  matter  sufficiently  plain,  our  conversation 


112  SCHEME    OF    THE    CONTROVEESY 

on  this  subject  ended.  He,  however,  called 
on  me  the  next  day,  and  said,  I  am  really 
surprised  at  what  you  said  yesterday,  and 
could  hardly  sleep  for  thinking  of  it. 

The  error  I  am  guardfng  against,  is  that 
of  claiming  an  exclusive  right  to  those 
Scriptures,  which  do  not  exclusively  belong 
to  them.  It  is  by  means  of  this  common 
error,  that  the  Baptist  cause  is  maintained; 
for  it  gives  it  the  appearance  of  strength, 
when  in  reality  it  has  none.  Mr.  Booth  shall 
come  forward  as  an  example,  since  he  is  as 
deeply  tinctured  v/ith  this  error  as  any  of  his 
brethren.  In  vol.  ii.  p.  415,  he  says,  "  The 
Baptists  have  no  need  of  subterfuge  to  evade 
the  force  of  any  argument  formed  upon  it, 
[1  Cor.  vii.  14,]  is  plain,  I  humbly  jconceive, 
from  the  preceding  reflections.  No,  while 
they  have  both  precept  and  example  on  their 
side,"  &c. — Both  precept  and  example  on 
their  side!  This  looks  very  formidable  in- 
deed :  But  let  us  examine  the  phrase.  Pray, 
Mr.  Booth,  what  do  you  mean  by  the  Bap- 
tists'side?  Do  you  mean  adult  baptism?  If 
you  mean  this,  it  is  only  passing  a  deception 
upon  the  reader;  for  you  must  know  that 
Paedobaptists  have  no  dispute  with  you  upon 
that  subject.  You  certainly  know  that  they 
both  hold  and  practise  adult  baptism  as  well 
as  you,  and  that  what  you  call  your  side  is 
no  more  yours  than  it  is  theirs.  But  do  you 
mean  the  denial  of  infant  baptism  ?  This  you 
should  mean,  when  you  distinguish  your  side 
from  theirs;  for  herein  it  is,  that  you  and  Pse- 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  1  ]  3 

dobaptists  take  different  sides,  seeing  they 
affirm,  and  3^011  deny,  that  infants  are  fit  sub- 
jects of  baptism.  If  so,  then  you  affirm  that 
Baptists  have  both  precept  and  example  for 
the  denial  of  infant  baptism,  which  is  indeed 
properly  your  side.  No,  sir,  very  far  from  it; 
you  have  neither  precept  nor  example,  on 
your  side,  in  all  the  word  of  God.  You  have\ 
nothing  in  the  world  on  your  side,  as  you  \ 
are  pleased  to  call  it,  but  two  poor  sophisms,  j 
i.  e.  a  pair  of  bad,  very  bad  arguments,  which 
I  have  placed  together  in  one  column. 

But  the  truth  is,  when  you  speak  in  so 
lofty  a  tone  of  the  Baptists'  side,  as  having 
both  precept  and  example,  you  only  mean 
that  adult  baptism  has  these.  Pray,  sir,  do 
you  and  Pasdobaptists  take  opposite  sides  on 
the  article  of  adult  baptism?  If  not,  why  is 
it  your  side  so  peculiarly?  You  have  said 
in  this  quotation,  that  the  Baptists  have  no 
need  of  subterfuge.  Good  sir,  what  is  a  sub- 
terfuge? Is  it  an  evasion — a  deception?  Why 
do  you  call  that  your  side  exclusively,  which 
is  no  more  3^our  side  than  it  is  the  side  of  the 
Peedobapiisis?  Was  it  because  your  own 
real  side  [the  denial  of  infant  baptism]  was 
weak?  And  did  you  wish  by  a  dexterous 
shift,  to  make  it  pass  for  strong?  Pray,  Mr. 
B.  is  not  this  a  subterfuge?  It  is  very  extra- 
ordinary that  you  should  fly  to  a  subterfuge, 
and  in  that  very  place  too,  where  you  say 
the  Baptists  do  not  need  any.  And  whereas 
most  disputants  make  use  of  subterfuges  only 
when  they  actually  need  them,  it  is  extraor- 


114  SCHEME    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY 

dinary  that  you  should  make  use  of  a  subter- 
fuge, when,  as  yourself  say,  there  is  in  reahty 
no  need  of  any  such  thing. 

By  this  the  reader  may  perceive  how  ne- 
cessary it  is  to  keep  these  things  clear  in  his 
own  mind,  if  he  wishes  to  form  a  judgment 
on  this  subject  according  to  truth;  for  though 
the  Baptist  side  has  in  reahty  no  strength  at 
ah,  yet  it  acquires  the  appearance  of  it  from 
the  misrepresentation  which  I  have  endea- 
voured to  expose.  I  have,  therefore,  been 
the  more  desirous  of  placing  this  matter  in  a 
fair  light;  because,  though  frequently  called 
to  speak  on  the  subject,  I  was  not  for  some 
years  aware  of  the  deception.  Let  the  reader 
keep  in  view  those  Scriptures  at  the  top  of 
the  Scheme,  which  weigh  equally  on  both 
sides,  while  I  pass  to  the  two  colunms,  where 
the  arguments  of  both  are  placed  in  opposi- 
tion to  each  other;  and  by  comparing  these, 
we  shall  see  which  is  the  stronger,  and,  there- 
fore, which  is  the  true  side  of  the  question. 

2.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  Scheme, 
he  will  see,  on  the  left  column,  what  is  the 
neat  strength  of  the  Baptist  side,  and  what 
arguments  they  produce  against  the  baptism 
of  infants.  I  have  there  set  down  two  argu- 
ments which  are  urged  by  Baptists:  the  one 
taken  from  a  want  of  express  precept  or  ex- 
ample to  baptize  infants;  the  other  from  their 
want  of  capacity  to  beheve  and  repent,  &c. 
These  two  are  the  only  arguments  they  can 
produce;  and  if  they  are  not  good,  they  have 
nothing  good  to  urge.     With  respect  to  the 


ON    INFANT     BAPTISM.  115 

first,  that  there  is  no  express  command  or 
example  for  baptizing  infants,  the  same  is 
true  respecting  female  communion;  and  so 
this  argument,  if  it  were  good,  would  have  a 
doable  effect:  it  would  exclude  infants  from 
baptism,  and  females  from  the  Lord's  Supper. 
And  then  the  Baptists  would  be  right  in  re- 
fusing to  baptize  infants;? but,  at  the  same 
time,  they  would  be  wrong  in  admitting  fe- 
males to  the  Lord's  Supper;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, if  women  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's 
table,  though  there  be  no  express  law  or  ex- 
ample for  their  admission,  then  the  argument 
is  good  for  nothiiig.  I  shall  say  more  upon 
this,  when  I  come  to  examine  Mr.  B.'s  de- 
fence of  female  communion. 

As  to  the  other  argument,  I  mean  that 
taken  from  the  incapacity  of  infants  to  be- 
lieve and  repent,  it  is  nothing  more  than  a 
sophism.  I  have  discovered  its  fallacy  by 
applying  it  to  different  cases;  and  in  the 
same  way  that  it  proved  against  infant  bap- 
tism, it  would  have  proved  against  infant  cir- 
cumcision— against  the  baptism  of  Christ — 
against  the  temporal  subsistence  of  infants — 
and,  lastly,  against  their  eternal  salvation.  I 
have  likewise  shown  wherein  its  fallacy  con- 
sisted, viz.  in  bringing  more  into  the  conclu- 
sion than  was  in  the  premises:  all  this  the 
reader  may  observe  by  recurring  to  the  place 
where  it  is  examined.  The  consequence  is 
that  the  Baptists  have  nothing  to  place 
against  infant  baptism,  but  two  unsound, 
sophistical,  deceitful  arguments.     This  is  the 


116  SCHEME    OF   THE    CONTROVERSY 

sum  total  of  the  Baptist  side;  but  if  any 
Baptist  think  he  is  able  either  to  maintain 
these  two  arguments,  or  to  produce  any  thing 
better,  I  seriously  invite  him  to  the  task. 

3.  On  the  opposite  column  I  have  placed 
the  arguments  for  infant  baptism.  Their  or- 
der is  the  most  simple,  and  the  whole  con- 
sists of  three  parts:  1.  That  God  formed  a 
church  on  earth,  and  constituted  infants 
members  of  that  church: — 2.  That  the  mem- 
bership of  infants,  from  that  time  to  this,  has 
never  been  set  aside  by  any  order  of  God; 
consequently  it  still  remains: — 3.  That  as  in- 
fants have  a  divine  right  to  membership, 
they  must  be  received  as  members;  and  as 
they  must  not  be  received  without  being 
baptized,  they  must  be  baptized  in  order  to 
be  received. 

These  are  the  arguments  in  one  column, 
which  are  to  be  compared  with  those  two  on 
the  Baptist  side  in  the  other;  and  by  com- 
paring them  together,  the  reader  may  see  on 
which  side  the  evidence  preponderates,  and 
consequently  on  which  side  the  truth  actu- 
ally lies.  There  are  three  parts  on  the  right 
column,  which  link  into  each  other,  and  form 
a  strong  chain  of  evidence,  to  be  placed  in 
opposition  to  two  false  sophistical  arguments, 
which  constitute  the  whole  force  on  the  Bap- 
tist side;  that  is,  there  is  something  to  be 
placed  against  nothing — substantial  evidence 
against  a  pair  of  sophisms:  and  this  is  to  be 
done,  that  the  reader  may  see  which  has  the 
stronger  side,  and  which  the  true.    As  far  as 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  H? 

concerns  myself,  I  only  say  I  have,  after 
many  supplications  for  the  best  teaching,  ex- 
amined, compared,  and  decided,  and  am  well 
satisfied  with  the  decision :  the  reader,  if  he 
be  a  man  fearing  God,  will  go  and  do  like- 
wise. So  much  for  the  comparison;  a  few 
words  on  the  evidence,  by  itself,  will  finish 
this  part  of  the  business. 

The  nature  of  this  proof,  on  the  side  of  in- 
fants, is  such,  that  Baptists  can  only  attack 
it  in  one  part ;  e.  g.  If  I  afllrm,  as  in  the  first 
part,  that  God  did  constitute  infants  members 
of  his  church,  the  Baptists  grant  they  were 
once  church  members.  If  I  affirm,  as  in  the 
third,  that  every  one  who  has  a  right  to  be  a 
church  member,  has  a  right  to  be  baptized, 
they  are  compelled  to  grant  that  too.  So 
there  remains  but  one  point  on  which  a  Bap- 
tist can  form  an  attack,  and  that  is  the  second 
part,  wherein  I  say,  that  the  church-mem- 
bership of  infants  having  been  once  an  insti- 
tution of  God,  it  was  never  set  aside  either 
by  God  immediately,  or  by  any  man  acting 
under  the  authority  of  God.  This  is  the 
point  then  that  decides  the  question.  I  will 
spend  a  few  words  in  vindicating  this  turn- 
ing point  against  the  argumentum  ad  homi- 
nem  made  use  of  by  Mr.  Booth. 

In  support  of  this  I  have  argued  from  five 
topics:  God's  method  of  acting  in  bringing 
the  Gentiles  into  a  church  state;  there  never 
was  a  law  of  God  to  set  their  membership 
aside;  the  Jews,  in  Christ's  time,  had  no  ap- 
prehension of  any  such  thing ;  Christ  spoke 


118  SCHEME   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY 

of  infants  as  actually  belonging  to  the  church, 
and  his  apostle  placed  them  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  baptism  as  they  had  been  in  to  cir- 
cumcision; and  St.  Paul,  in  conformity  to 
this  scheme,  baptized  families,  particularly 
the  jailer,  and  all  his,  straightway.  Each  of 
these  is  already  set  forth,  and  evinced  in  its 
proper  place. 

But  what  do  the  Baptists  place  against 
this  evidence?  Mr.  Booth,  in  answering  Dr. 
Williams  on  this  subject,  does  neither  pro- 
duce one  Scripture  to  prove  that  the  church- 
membership  of  infants,  which  he  grants  to 
have  existed  once,  was  ever  set  aside;  nor 
does  he  answer  those  Scriptures  which  the 
Doctor  had  alleged  to  evince  the  continuance 
of  their  membership.  What  then  does  Mr. 
B.  do?  Whoever  will  be  at  the  pains  to 
read  his  books,  will  find  his  mode  of  reason- 
ing to  be  of  this  kind.  He  instances  a 
variety  of  things  belonging  to  the  Jewish 
church,  such  as  its  being  national — its  priest- 
hood— its  tithes — its  various  purifications — 
its  holy  places,  holy  garments,  &c. ;  and  then 
argues  most  erroneously,  that  as  these  things 
are  done  away,  the  membership  of  infants 
must  be  done  away  too.  This,  I  say,  is  the 
mode  of  his  arguing,  and  indeed  the  only  ar- 
gument he  brings,  as  may  be  seen  by  any 
one  who  reads  his  works  with  care.  Now 
this  reasoning  of  his  involves  a  very  egre- 
gious absurdity,  and  a  very  material  error  in 
point  of  chronology. 

I.  A  very  egregious  absurdity.     Mr.   B. 


ox    INFANT    BAPTISM.  HQ 

seems  to  consider  the  various  rites,  &c.  of 
the  Jewish  church  as  being  so  incorporated 
and  interwoven  with  the  members  of  that 
church,  that  the  rites  and  they  become  essen- 
tially the  same;  and  then,  if  the  rites  be 
taken  away,  he  fancies  that  the  very  essence 
of  the  church  is  so  destroyed  or  altered,  that 
infant  membership  is  gone  of  course.  Let 
any  one  weigh  Mr.  B.'s  reasoning  in  vol.  ii. 
p.  37,  and  understand  him  on  any  other  than 
this  absurd  principle  if  he  can.  ^'  An  apos- 
tle," says  he,  "  has  taught  us,  that  the  an- 
f  lent  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made 
of  necessity  a  change  also  in  the  law.  That 
is,  as  Dr.  Owen  explains  it,  the  whole  law  of 
commandments  contained  in  ordinances,  or 
the  whole  law  of  Moses,  so  far  as  it  was  a 
rule  of  worship  and  obedience  unto  the 
church;  for  that  law  it  is,  that  folio weth  the 
fates  of  the  priesthood.'^  Very  well.  That 
law  was  changed,  which  was  a  rule  of  wor- 
ship and  obedience  to  the  church;  but  what 
has  this  to  do  with  changing  the  church?  Is 
a  church  changed,  because  the  rule,  which 
directed  its  worship,  is  changed?  I  wonder 
much  why  Dr.  Owen  is  here  introduced,  un- 
less it  be  to  pass  off  an  absurdity  under  the 
sanction  of  a  great  name;  as  nothing  can  be 
more  contrary  to  what  Mr.  B.  is  going  to 
say,  than  this  quotation  from  the  Doctor. 

Now  see  Mr.  B.'s  curious  reasoning.  '^  We 
may  therefore  adopt  the  sacred  writer's  prin- 
ciple of  reasoning,  and  say,  the  constitution 
of  the  visible  church  being  manifestly  and 


120  SCHEME    OF    THE   CONTKOVERSY. 

essentially  altered,  the  law,  relating  to  quali- 
fications for  communion  in  it,  must  of  neces- 
sity be  changed.  Consequently,  no  valid  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  from  the  membership 
of  infants,  under  the  former  dispensation,  to 
a  similarity  of  external  privilege  imder  the 
new  covenant."  Now  in  what  way  could 
the  constitution  of  the  church  be  essentially 
altered  by  a  change  in  the  law  of  ordinances, 
unless  upon  that  absurd  idea,  that  the  ordi- 
nances and  members  were  so  compounded 
and  incorporated  with  each  other,  as  to  form, 
in  this  incorporated  state,  the  very  essence  of 
the  church? 

One  thing  we  may  remark  in  this  quota- 
tion, which  is,  that  Mr.  B.  grants  infants  to 
have  been  church  members  under  the  former 
dispensation.  This  is  granting  my  first  argu- 
ment for  infant  baptism;  there  is  only  one 
more  to  be  maintained,  viz.  That  the  mem- 
bership of  infants  has  never  been  annulled; 
and  this  being  evinced,  the  opposition  of  a 
Baptist  is  at  an  end,  since  he  cannot  by  any 
means  deny  the  conclusion.  And  now  the 
whole  debate  is  brought  into  this  narrow 
limit — Has  the  church  membership  of  in- 
fants at  any  time  been  set  aside,  or  has  it 
not?  I  have  advanced  five  arguments  to 
prove  it  never  has  been  set  aside.  Mr.  B. 
says  it  has.  If  you  ask  him  to  prove  it,  he 
tells  you,  "the  constitution  of  the  visible 
church  is  manifestly  and  essentially  altered." 
If  you  ask  him  how  he  proves  this  essential 
alteration?  he  tells  you, that  tithes, and  puri- 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  121 

fications,  and  priesthood,  and  other  things  of 
this  kind  belonging  to  the  Mosaic  code,  are 
changed  or  taken  away;  and  then  most  ab- 
surdly infers,  that  infant  membership  is  taken 
away  too:  as  if  a  member  of  a  church  and  a 
Mosaic  rite  had  been  the  same;  as  if  infant 
membership,  which  was  long  before  Moses, 
had  been  nothing  more  than  a  Mosaic  rite. 
But  let  us  observe  how  grandly  he  reasons 
down  infant  membership. 

*<  We  may  therefore,'^  says  he,  "  adopt  the 
sacred  writer's  principle  of  reasoning,  and 
say." — I  have  been  at  some  pains  to  inform 
myself  respecting  this  sentence — whether 
Mr.  B.  meant  to  imitate  the  apostle's  phrase- 
ology, or  to  reason  after  the  same  method,  or 
to  reason  from  the  apostle's  datum  or  princi- 
ple, viz.  "  the  priesthood  being  changed."  I 
was  at  length  inclined  to  view  the  latter  as 
his  meaning;  because  it  seemed  too  trivial  to 
tell  the  reader  in  that  pompous  way,  "  We 
may  adopt  the  sacred  writer's  principle  of 
reasoning,"  when  nothing  more  was  meant 
but  imitation  of  phraseology.  For  the  same 
reason  I  thought  he  could  not  mean  an  imi- 
tation of  the  apostle's  method;  for  that  would 
be  only  saying,  he  should  lay  down  a  datum 
as  the  apostle  had  done,  and  then  draw  an 
inference  as  the  apostle  did.  All  this  is  very 
well,  and  secundum  artern;  but  then  he 
might  as  well  have  told  the  reader,  that  he 
would  adopt  Aristotle's  principle  of  reason- 
ing, as  the  sacred  writer's.  For  if  Mr.  B. 
only  meant  that  he  would  lay  down  a  datuna 
11 


122  SCHEME    OF   THE    CONTROVERSY 

or  principle  to  begin  with,  and  then  proceed 
to  infer,  it  can  signify  nothing  to  any  man 
living,  unless  his  datum  be  a  true  one.  And 
if  this  be  all,  he  need  not  have  introduced  it 
with  such  pomp  as  the  "sacred  writer's  prin- 
ciple of  reasoning;"  for  what  other  would 
any  person  adopt,  unless  he  were  an  idiot? 
This,  as  well  as  the  other,  being  too  trifling 
to  be  Mr.  B.'s  meaning,  I  therefore  concluded 
he  meant  to  adopt  the  apostle's  datum,  viz. 
"  The  priesthood  being  changed,"  and  from 
thence  to  draw  an  inference  against  infants. 
I  was  the  more  inclined  to  think  he  intended 
this,  since  he  had  just  cited  the  apostle's 
v/ords,  and  Dr.  Owen's  explanation  of  them; 
and  this  being  done,  he  immediately  proceeds 
to  adopt. 

The  apostle  does  indeed  say,  "  The  priest- 
hood being  changed,  there  is  made  of  neces- 
sity a  change  also  of  the  law."  The  priest- 
hood implied  servants  of  the  church  to  min- 
ister in  holy  things;  the  law  was  a  com- 
mandment contained  in  ordinances,  and  was, 
as  Dr.  Owen  said,  a  rule  of  worship  and 
obedience  to  the  church.  The  priests  who 
were  to  minister,  and  the  law,  which  was  to 
regulate,  were  both  changed:  the  law  was 
changed  in  consequence  of  a  change  in  the 
priesthood.  Well,  and  what  then?  Why, 
according  to  Mr.  B.  the  argument  will  run 
thus:  The  priests  were  changed,  and  the  rule 
of  worship  was  changed,  therefore  the  church 
was  essentially  altered,  therefore  infants  were 
excluded.     Is  not  this  a  good  inference,  The 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  123 

priests  were  changed,  therefore  infants  were 
excommunicated?  It  might  have  been  so,  if 
the  priests  had  all  been  infants;  but  even 
then  it  would  only  have  concluded  against 
infant  priests.  Every  argument  Mr,  B.  has 
brought  against  the  continuance  of  infant 
church  membership  is  of  the  same  kind — 
tithes,  purifications,  holy  places,  &c.  and  of 
these  the  reader  may  take  which  he  pleases, 
and  infer  accordingly.  Tithes  are  abroga- 
ted, therefore  infants  are  excluded.  Purifica- 
tions are  set  aside,  therefore  infants  are  shut 
out.  Holy  places,  &c.  are  no  more,  therefore 
— not  so  fast — If  Mr.  B.  is  to  make  good  his 
conclusion  against  the  perpetuity  of  infant 
membership  from  that  datum  of  the  apostle, 
^'  The  priesthood  being  changed,"  let  him 
have  the  liberty  of  wording  his  ov/n  argu- 
ment— I  have  no  objection  to  this — let  him 
proceed. 

"  The  constitution  of  the  visible  church 
being  essentially  altered" — Stop — pray,  sir, 
is  this  the  apostle's  principle  of  reasoning? 
Do  you,  by  that  sentence,  mean  the  same  as 
is  expressed  b}''  the  apostle,  "  The  priesthood 
being  changed?"  If  you  do,  1  will  not  con- 
tend for  a  word. — Proceed — "  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  visible  church  [that  is,  the  priest- 
hood] being  essentially  altered  or  changed, 
the  law,  relating  to  qualifications  for  com- 
munion in  it,  [that  is,  in  the  priesthood]  must 
of  necessity  be  changed:  Consequently  [be- 
cause the  priesthood  is  changed]  no  valid  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  from  the  membership 


]  24  SCHEME     OF    THE     CONTROVERSY 

of  infants  [that  is,  in  the  priesthood]  under 
the  former  dispensation,  to  a  similarity  of  ex- 
ternal privilege  under  the  new  covenant.^' 
Be7ie  conclusum  est  a  da  to  script  oris  sacri! 
And  an  excellent  argument  it  is  against  all 
those  who  mean  to  bring  up  their  infants  to 
be  Jewish  priests. 

Jih,  aliquis  error  latet!  Mr.  B.  did  not 
mean  to  conclude  so:  He  is  disputing  against 
infant  baptism,  and  not  against  infant  priest- 
hood. Very  well;  but  then  he  must  have  a 
very  different  datum.  He  is  certainly  at 
liberty  to  dispute  and  conclude  as  he  pleases, 
only  let  him  do  it  fairly.  I  certainly  supposed 
he  was  reasoning  from  the  sacred  writer's 
principle — "The  priesthood  being  changed;" 
he  had  just  quoted  it,  and  set  Dr.  Owen  to 
explain  it,  and  said,  "  We  may  adopt  it:" 
But  that  principle,  as  to  infants,  only  con- 
cludes against  an  infant  priesthood,  which 
was  not  the  thing  he  intended. 

Priests,  we  said,  were  servants  to  minister 
to  the  church  in  holy  things;  and  if  so,  there 
is  a  wide  difference  between  the  priesthood 
being  changed,  and  the  constitution  of  the 
visible  church  (namely,  the  members  who 
constitute  it)  being  essentially  altered.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  all  the  instances  men- 
tioned by  Mr.  B.;  these  might  all  be  changed 
or  abrogated,  and  yet  no  essential  alteration 
take  place  in  the  church,  that  is,  in  the  mem- 
bers of  it.  I  am  very  suspicious  that  Mr.  B. 
to  make  out  a  better  conclusion,  meant  to 
pass  it  upon  the  reader,  that  the  apostle's  ex- 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  125 

pression,  "  the  priesthood  being  chaiiged,^^ 
and  that  of  his,  "  the  constitution  of  the  vi- 
sible church  being  essentially  altered,''''  were 
of  the  same  import,  and  conveyed  precisely 
the  same  idea.     If  this  was  really  his  design, 
it  is  not  much  to  his  honour;  it  must  proceed 
from  a  greater  love  to  hypothesis  than  to 
truth,  or,  as  I  rather  think,  it  arose  from  that 
absurd  idea  which  he  seems  to  entertain — 
that   the   priesthood,  rites,  and   ordinances, 
which  were  given  to  the  church,  were  essen- 
tially the  same  with  that  church  to  which 
they  were  given.    And  it  it  is  on  this  absurd 
principle  that  his  opposition  to  the  continu- 
ance of  infant  membership  is  carried  on:  he 
turns  the  priesthood  into  a  church,  and  every 
institute  into  an  infant,  and  then  contemplates 
the  change  of  the  one,  and  the  removal  of  the 
other.     In  the  change  of  priesthood  he  sees 
nothing  but  an  essential  change  in  the  church, 
and  fancies  the  removal  of  institutes  to  be  the 
removal  of  infants.     And  now  he  will  adopt 
the   principle   of    the   sacred   writer : — The 
priesthood  is  changed,  therefore  the  church 
is  essentially  altered;  this  institute  is  taken 
away,  there  goes  an  infant;  that  institute  is 
abrogated,  there    goes  another  infant;    and 
now  all  the  institutes  are  gone,  and  now  all 
the  infants  are  gone;  and  then,  says  he,  "  no 
valid  inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  mem- 
bership of  infants  under  the  former  dispensa- 
tion, to    a   similarity   of  external   privilege 
under  the  new  covenant.'' — We  will  now 


126  SCHEME    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY 

leave  Mr.  B.  in  possession  of  his  absurdity, 
and  take  notice  of, 

II.  A  very  material  error  in  point  of  chro- 
nology. With  respect  to  chronology,  most 
persons  know,  that  from  the  time  of  Abraham 
to  that  of  instituting  the  priesthood,  the  Mo- 
saic rites,  &c.  we  may  reckon  about  four 
hundred  years.  During  this  space  of  time, 
the  church,  in  which  infants  were  members, 
was  not  national;  it  had  no  levitical  priest- 
hood, there  was  no  institution  of  tithes,  nor 
was  the  Mosaic  code  of  rites  yet  formed.  All 
we  know  of  the  church  is,  that  its  members 
consisted  of  adults  and  infants,  who  were  in- 
itiated by  the  same  rite;  that  sacrifices  were 
offered;  and,  it  is  probable,  that  the  father  of 
the  family,  or  some  respectable  person,  did 
officiate  in  their  assemblies  as  a  priest.  Here 
is  a  congregational  church,  a  simple  worship, 
and  some  creditable  officiating  priest. 

If  we  carry  our  views  forward,  we  shall 
see  Ihat  church,  which  at  first  was  congrega- 
tional, become  a  national  church;  the  wor- 
ship that  was  once  simple,  under  the  direction 
of  the  Mosaic  code;  and  instead  of  a  priest 
chosen  by  the  people,  a  regular  priesthood  is 
ordained  of  God.  Now,  whether  we  view 
the  congregational  or  national  form,  the  sim- 
ple or  complex  worship,  the  irregular  or  re- 
gular priesthood,  we  see  no  alteration  in  the 
constitution  of  the  church,  much  less  an  es- 
sential one,  as  it  respected  the  members  of 
which  it  was  composed.  If  therefore,  the 
passing  from  congregational  to  national,  from 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  127 

a  simple  to  a  complex  worship,  from  an  ir- 
regular to  a  regular  priesthood,  produced  no 
essential  alteration  in  the  church  members, 
then  should  all  this  be  reversed,  should  there 
be  a  change  from  national  to  congregational, 
from  a  complex  to  a  simple  worship,  from  a 
regular  to  an  irregular  priesthood?  Every- 
man in  his  senses  must  see  that  this  can  no 
more  alter  the  essence  of  the  church,  than 
the  other  did. 

All  this  is  plain  enough  to  any  man  except 
Mr.  B.;  for,  according  to  his  mode  of  rea- 
soning, there  must  have  been,  from  the  be- 
ginning, I  know  not  how  many  essential  al- 
terations in  the  constitution  of  the  visible 
church:  For  if,  as  he  will  have  it,  a  change 
of  priesthood  made  one  essential  change, 
then  the  institution  of  the  same  priesthood 
must  have  made  another — so  there  were  two 
changes.  And,  not  to  say  any  thing  of  the 
changes  from  Adam  to  Abraham,  what  be- 
came of  the  essence  of  the  church  when  the 
functions  of  this  priesthood,  during  the  cap- 
tivity, were  suspended?  For  if  the  changing 
of  priesthood  did  essentially  alter  the  church, 
the  institution  of  priesthood  must  have  done 
the  same;  and  then  its  suspension  during  the 
captivity,  and  its  restoration  at  the  close  of 
it,  must  have  made  two  more;  because,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  B.'s  view  of  things,  a  change 
of  priesthood  essentially  alters  the  church. 

I  observe  that  Mr.  B,  in  opposing  the  con- 
tinuance of  infant  membership,  takes  care  not 
to  go  too  far  back;  the  period  of  Mosaic  rites 


128 


SCHEME    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY 


suits  him  best,  and  there  he  fixes;  for  this  era, 
as  he  supposes,  furnishes  him  with  weapons 
which  he  does  not  sparingly  use,  especially 
against  a  dissenting  minister.  Here  he  finds 
not  only  infant  membership,  but  a  national 
church,  a  priesthood,  tithes,  and  institutes  of 
various  kinds.  Now,  says  Mr.  B.  when  rea- 
soning with  a  dissenting  minister,  "If  you 
will  plead  for  the  continuance  of  infant  mem- 
bership, which  I  grant  to  have  existed,  you 
must  also  admit  a  national  church;  you  must 
call  yourself  a  priest,  and  wear  holy  gar- 
ments, and  turn  your  communion-table  into 
an  altar,  and  demand  tithes,  and  call  your 
meeting  a  holy  place. '^  But  why  all  this? 
Because,  says  he,  all  these  things  belonged 
to  the  same  dispensation  as  infant  member- 
ship did;  and  so,  if  you  take  one,  you  must 
even  take  all,  and  then  you  will  have  a  tole- 
rable body  of  Judaism. 

Now,  before  we  rob  Mr.  B.  of  this  misera- 
ble weapon,  I  would  just  observe,  that  this 
argument  of  his,  which  is  the  only  one  he 
has  got,  is  what  is  called  argumentiim  ad 
hominem;  and,  though  often  used,  it  is  one 
of  the  weakest  that  can  be  adopted.  It  is 
calculated  to  make  an  impression  on  some 
men,  whose  sentiments  may  be  of  a  peculiar 
cast;  but  if  the  same  be  turned  against  others 
who  are  of  a  different  sentiment,  it  is  of  no 
force  at  all : — e.  g.  Mr.  B.'s  argument  has  the 
appearance  of  strength,  if  used  against  a  dis- 
senting minister;  because  he  may  reject  the 
idea  of  a  national  church,  priesthood,  the 


ON   INFANT  BAPTISM.  129 

right  of  tithes,  &c.;  but  if  the  same  be  urged 
against  a  clergyman  of  the  establishment 
who  admits  these,  all  its  force  is  gone — it  is 
even  good  for  nothing.  This  argument  de- 
rives all  its  force  from  the  sentiments  of  the 
person  against  whom  it  is  used;  it  may  be 
very  strong  against  one  man,  and  very  weak 
against  another;  it  will  serve  to  support  error 
as  well  as  truth;  and,  therefore,  when  it  is  a 
solitary  argument,  no  dependence  whatever 
can  be  placed  upon  it.  I  do  not  mean  to  dis- 
card the  use  of  it  in  all  cases — I  grant  it  may 
answer  a  good  purpose,  if  prudently  man- 
aged; but  this  I  say,  it  should  never  be  a 
man's  only  argument;  for  that  man's  cause 
must  be  miserably  poor  indeed,  which  de- 
pends on  one  solitary  argument,  that  will 
either  protect  truth  or  falsehood.  Just  such 
is  the  case  of  Mr.  B.  in  opposing  the  continu- 
ance of  infant  membership;  and  I  wish  him 
to  consider  seriously,  whether  such  kind  of 
reasoning  is  fit  «o  stand  against  a  plan  of 
God. 

Now,  weak  as  this  argument  is  in  itself, 
there  is  one  thing  in  Mr.  B.'s  case,  which 
makes  it  still  worse;  he  is  indebted  for  the 
use  of  it  to  a  very  capital  absurdity.  As  he 
is  not  able  to  prove  an  essential  alteration  in 
the  constitution  of  the  church,  he  supposes, 
or  seems  to  suppose,  that  members  and  reli- 
gious institutes  do  belong  to,  and  equally 
constitute  the  essence  of  the  church  of  God; 
for  what  else  but  such  an  absurd  idea  could 
induce  him  to  affirm,  that  the  church  was 
12 


130  SCHEME    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY 

essentially  altered,  and  so  infants  cut  off, 
merely  because  the  institutes  of  the  church 
were  abrogated?  Now,  though  this  argu- 
ment of  his  is  so  exceedingly  weak,  and  the 
principle  on  which  it  is  built  so  very  absurd, 
that  no  one  need  be  under  any  apprehension, 
should  it  remain  quietly  in  his  possession,  I 
mean,  notwithstanding,  to  take  the  liberty  of 
changing  his  place,  and  fixing  him  in  that 
station^  where  he  shall  feel  himself  totally 
deprived  of  its  assistance. 

Mr.  B.  must  certainly  know  that  the  na- 
tional form  of  the  church,  the  institution  of 
priesthood,  tithes,  and  other  Mosaic  ordinan- 
ces, were  of  a  much  later  date  than  infant 
church-membership.  I  take  the  liberty,  there- 
fore, of  changing  Mr.  B.'s  standing,  and  put- 
ting him  as  far  back  as  the  patriarchal  age, 
the  times  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 
And  now  having  placed  Mr.  B.  among  the 
patriarchs,  I  wish  him  to  take  a  view  of  their 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  to  indulge  me  at  the 
same  time  with  a  little  free  conversation  on 
that  subject. 

/"Now,  Sir,  what  do  you  perceive  in  this  age 
of  the  church?  Here  you  see  the  venerable 
patriarchs,  obedient  to  the  divine  order,  ad- 
mitting infants  to  church-membership.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  you  see  here  no  national 
church,  no  instituted  priesthood,  no  law  of 
tithes,  nor  indeed  any  Mosaic  rites.  Your 
favourite  argument  against  the  continuance 
of  infant  membership,  derived  from  a  na- 
tional church,  the  levitical  priesthood,  tithes. 


ON    INFANT    BAPTIS3I.  131 

&c.  is,  by  falling  back  about  the  space  of 
three  hundred  years,  fairly  and  irrecoverably 
lost.  You  had  formed  so  close  a  connec- 
tion between  infant  membership,  a  national 
church,  a  priesthood,  tithes,  and  Mosaic  rites; 
as  if  they  all  rose  into  existence  at  the  same 
time,  and  were  all  to  expire  together.  But 
here  they  stand  entirely  apart;  infant  mem- 
bership is  in  no  alliance  with  a  national 
church,  is  totally  unconnected  with  levitical 
priesthood,  and  has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with 
Mosaic  institutes.  The  close  union  you  fan- 
cied existed  between  these  does  here  vanish 
away.  And  now.  Sir,  what  will  you  do 
with  a  dissenting  minister  in  this  case  ?  Your 
argumentum  ad  hominem,  the  only  argu- 
ment you  had,  is  lost. 

Lost,  did  I  say?— Nay,  now  I  think  of  it, 
it  is  not  lost  neither.  Oh  no!  so  far  from  it, 
that  I  believe  1  can  put  you  in  a  way  where- 
by you  may  manage  your  matters  to  far  great- 
er advantage.  For  though,  by  putting  you 
back  to  the  patriarchal  age,  I  deprive  you  of 
those  topics  with  which  you  have  been  able 
to  combat  a  dissenting  minister,  viz.  a  na- 
tional church,  an  instituted  priestliood.  Mosaic 
rites,  &c.;  yet  all  is  not  lost;  you  will  here 
find  topics,  which,  if  managed  with  dexterity, 
will  make  no  inconsiderable  impression  on  a 
clergyman  of  the  establishment.  You  observe 
Sir,  that  infant  membership  has  nothing  to  do 
with  a  national  church,  priesthood,  tithes,  &c. ; 
and  then,  should  any  clergyman  of  the  estab- 
lishment rise  to  defend  the  continuance  of  in- 


132  SCHEME    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY 

fant  membership,  you  may  say  to  him,  My 
good  Sir,  if  you  insist  upon  infant  church- 
membership  now,  which  I  myself  grant  to 
have  existed  in  the  times  of  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob;  pray  observe  the  consequence; 
you  must  relinquish  the  idea  of  a  national 
church,  you  must  cease  to  call  yourself  a 
priest,  you  must  lay  aside  your  holy  gar- 
ments, and  finally,  you  must  give  up  all  your 
tithes.  For,  if  you  will  be  a  patriarchal  pro- 
fessor in  infant  membership,  you  must  be  so 
in  every  thing  else.  If  you  will  conform  to 
the  patriarchs  in  one  particular;  in  the  name 
of  consistency  and  common  honesty,  I  ask, 
why  are  you  not  a  conformist  in  every  par- 
ticular? 

You  see,  Mr.  B.  that  this  is  argumejitum 
adhominem  against  a  clergyman  of  the  estab- 
lishment with  a  witness,  and  will  make  him 
feel  according  to  its  importance;  for  certainly 
it  will  bring  him  into  as  great  a  difficulty  as 
your  other  argument  of  the  same  kind  brought 
Dr.  Williams.  Well,  what  a  happy  inven- 
tion! Here  is  an  expedient,  by  which  you 
will  be  able  to  annoy  on  either  hand.  Be- 
fore, when  you  fixed  your  station  among  the 
Mosaic  rites,  you  could  only  act  with  advan- 
tage against  a  non-conformist;  but  now,  if 
you  only  step  back  three  hundred  years,  you 
may  employ  your  artillery  as  successfully 
against  an  antagonist  in  the  establishment. 
And  thus,  by  stepping  backward  or  forward, 
according  to  the  cast  of  your  adversary,  which 
is  a  thing  easily  done,  you  will  have  it  in 


ON    INFANT    BAPTISM.  133 

your  power  to  urge  something  against  all 
comers.  This  is  one  of  the  best  inventions 
in  the  world  for  your  cause;  for  as  you  stand 
forth  as  a  great  disputant  against  infant  mem- 
bership, it  is  probable  you  will  meet  with  an- 
tagonists of  all  kinds.  This  expedient — like 
the  two  edges  of  a  sword,  or  the  two  horns 
of  a  dilemma — will  enable  you  to  meet  an 
adversary  at  all  points.  Should  you  attack 
a  dissenting  minister,  be  sure  you  fix  upon 
Mosaic  rites;  but  if  a  clergyman  of  the  estab- 
Hshment  should  prove  an  antagonist,  you 
know  your  cue;  quit  that  station,  and  fall 
back  to  the  patriarchal  age;  and  so,  by  hu- 
mouring the  business,  you  will  be  a  match 
for  both.  Excuse  my  officiousness  in  sug- 
gesting any  thing,  especially  to  you,  who  are 
so  well  versed  in  all  the  turns  of  disputation; 
I  only  do  it,  because  this  thought  seemed  to 
escape  you. 

Candid  reader,  I  have  now  done  with  this 
part  of  the  subject,  and  have  only  to  say,  that 
of  all  the  miserable  oppositions  that  were  ever 
set  up  against  an  ordinance  of  God,  I  mean 
infant  membership  in  its  perpetuity,  I  think 
there  never  was  a  more  miserable  opposition 
than  this.  The  Baptists  grant  infant  church- 
membership  to  have  existed  once.  I  have 
affirmed  that  it  still  exists;  and  this  being 
proved,  the  opposition  of  a  Baptist  is  at  an 
end.  I  have  argued  from  five  different  topics, 
in  proof  of  the  perpetuity  of  infant  member- 
ship. Mr.  B.  who  denies  this,  urges  against 
it  one  solitary  argument;  and  that  even  the 


134       SCHEME    OF   THE    CONTROVERSY,    ETC. 

weakest  of  all  arguments,  the  argument um 
ad  hominem;  and  this  same  sohtary,  weak 
argument,  is  founded  on  a  gross  absurdity; 
and  finally,  by  removing  Mr.  B.  from  the  Mo- 
saic rites  to  the  patriarchal  age,  this  solitary, 
absurd  argument,  vanishes  like  a  ghost,  and 
utterly  forsakes  him. 


A  SHORT  METHOD 

WITH  THE  BAPTISTS. 


It  is  a  certain  fact,  that  when  any  sentiment 
is  false,  it  will  appear  the  more  glaringly  so, 
the  more  it  is  examined,  and  the  farther  it  is 
drawn  out.  I  have  been  very  attentive  to  the 
tendency  of  Mr.  Booth's  reasoning,  and  have 
pledged  myself  more  than  once  to  take  some 
notice  of  it.  When  a  writer  does  not  wish 
to  be  prolix  in  answering  a  large  work,  it  is 
best,  if  he  think  the  work  erroneous,  to  pitch 
upon  some  prominent  parts,  in  which  the  fal- 
lacy of  the  author  is  sufficiently  palpable  to 
run  down  and  ruin  his  whole  system.  I  will 
adopt  this  method  with  Mr.  B.'s  performance, 
wherein  he  expresses  the  sentiments,  and  pur- 
sues the  reasoning  of  the  Baptists  in  general. 
It  is  his  second  edition  of  Psedobaptism  Ex- 
amined, to  which  my  attention  will  be  chiefly 
directed,  as  that  subject  on  which  I  shall  more 
directly  animadvert,  is  not  handled  in  the  an- 
swer to  Dr.  Williams;  the  Doctor,  in  his  piece, 
having  urged  nothing  upon  it:  and  indeed  it 
does  not  signify  which  of  Mr.  B.'s  books  is 
quoted,  so  far  as  I  shall  notice  him. 

The  sentiment  of  the  Baptists,  respecting  a 
fit  subject  of  the  baptismal  ordinance,  divides 


136  A    SHORT   METHOD 

itself  into  two  parts:  they  affirm  that  believ- 
ing adults  are  fit  subjects  of  baptism; — they 
deny  that  baptism  should  be  administered  to 
infants.  When  supporting  what  they  affirm, 
the  subject  runs  very  smoothly;  and  no  man 
that  I  know,  except  perhaps  a  Quaker,  will 
deny  the  conclusion.  For  my  own  part,  I 
am  as  well  persuaded  that  a  believing  adult 
is  a  fit  subject  for  baptism,  as  ever  I  was  in 
my  life;  and  I  neither  have,  nor  mean  to  say, 
one  word  against  it.  This  is  the  common 
sentiment  of  Baptists  and  Psedobaptists,  and 
is  not,  as  Mr.  B.  falsely  and  boastingly  calls 
it,  the  Baptists'  side.  As  far,  therefore,  as  the 
proof  of  adult  baptism  goes,  it  is  all  very  well, 
and  exceedingly  plain  from  Scripture,  and  is 
admitted,  without  dispute,  by  both  parties. 

But  when  the  Baptists  are  brought  to  an- 
swer for  their  negative  part,  viz.  infants  are 
not  to  be  baptized,  their  difficulties  instantly 
commence,  and  the  mode  they  adopt  of  con- 
ducting the  debate,  drives  them  into  such  ex- 
tremities, as  ruin  the  cause  they  mean  to  car- 
ry, e.g.  Is  an  infant  to  be  baptized?  No, 
says  a  Baptist.  Why?  Because  baptism,  says 
he,  being  a  positive  ordinance,  no  one  can  be 
deemed  a  proper  subject  of  it,  but  by  virtue 
of  some  plain,  express  command  of  God. 
This  idea  of  express  command,  they  raise  so 
excessively  high,  that,  sure  enough,  they  have 
done  the  business  of  infants  in  cutting  them 
oflffrom  baptism;  but,  at  the  same  time,  and 
by  the  same  process,  a  breach  is  made  in  fe- 
male communion,  and  women  are  cut  off  from 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  137 

the  Lord's  table.  This  is  the  first  thing  that 
rises  out  of  their  system,  and  which  will  co- 
operate with  others  to  ruin  it.  I  undertake 
to  prove,  that,  according  to  the  principles  and 
reasonings  of  the  Baptists,  a  woman,  how- 
ever qualified,  can  have  no  right  at  all  to  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

Again,  the  Baptists,  in  order  to  patch  their 
system,  and  give  it  the  appearance  of  con- 
sistency, are  under  the  necessity  of  maintain- 
ing the  right  of  females  to  the  Lord's  table, 
upon  the  same  principle  on  which  they  op- 
pose infant  baptism;  but  when  they  set  about 
this,  they  make  a  shift  to  lose  their  principle, 
are  transformed  into  Psedobaptists,  reason  by 
analogy  and  inference,  and  fall  into  prevari- 
cation and  self-contradiction,  the  most  misera- 
ble. This  is  the  second  thing.*  I,  therefore, 
undertake  to  show,  that  the  Baptists,  in  prov- 
ing against  infants,  and  in  defending  female 
communion,  do  shift  their  ground,  contradict 
themselves,  and  prevaricate  most  pitifully. 

Further,  when  an  argument  is  urged  against 
the  Baptists  from  the  membership  of  infants 
in  the  ancient  church,  and  their  being,  all  in- 
fants as  they  were,  the  subjects  of  a  religious 
rite,  the  Baptists  do  not  deny  the  fact  of  their 
membership ;  but,  in  order  to  evade  the  conse- 
quence, they  lay  violent  hands  on  the  church, 
the  membership,  and  the  instituted  religious 
rite,  and  in  this  way  they  endeavour  to  effect 
their  escape.  This  is  the  third  thing.  I,  there- 
fore, undertake  to  prove,  that,  according  to 
their  principles  and  reasonings,  the  ever-bles- 


138 


A    SHORT    METHOD 


sed  God  had  no  church  in  this  world  for  at 
least  fifteen  hundred  years. 

There  is  another  thing  I  thought  of  intro- 
ducing against  the  Baptists  in  this  way ;  but 
as  I  know  not  how  they  will  answer  it, 
(since  Mr.  B.  has  said  nothing  about  it, 
though  it  was  in  a  work  which  he  himselif 
has  noticed)  I  intend  now  to  put  it  in  another 
part,  in  the  form  of  a  query,  which  I  shall 
submit  to  any  Baptist  who  may  think  proper 
to  write  on  the  subject. 

Here  are,  therefore,  three  things  that  arise 
out  of  the  Baptist  system,  and  which,  if 
fairly  evinced,  are  sufficient  to  ruin  that  sys- 
tem out  of  which  they  arise. 

1.  That,  according  to  the  principles  and 
reasoning  of  the  Baptists,  a  woman,  how- 
ever qualified,  can  have  no  right  at  all  to 
the  Lord's  table. 

2.  That  the  Baptists,  in  opposing  infant 
baptism,  and  defending  female  communion, 
do  shift  their  ground,  contradict  themselves, 
and  prevaricate  most  pitifully. 

3.  That  according  to  their  principles  and 
mode  of  reasoning,  God  had  no  church  in 
this  world  for  at  least  fifteen  hundred  years. 

These  things  I  undertake  to  make  out  from 
the  works  of  that  venerable  champion  on  the 
Baptist  side,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Abraham  Booth. 

I  will  begin  with  the  first  of  these,  viz. 
That,  according  to  the  principles,  &c.  of  the 
Baptists,  no  woman,  however  qualified,  can 
have  any  right  to  the  Lord's  table.  But  be- 
fore I  proceed  to  the  proof,  it  will  be  neces- 


WITH    THE     BAPTISTS.  139 

sary  to  observe  to  the  reader,  that  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper  are  both  considered 
by  Mr.  B.  as  positive  ordinances,  which  I 
will  not  dispute  with  him,  but  do  grant  them 
to  be  such.  The  reader,  therefore,  will  re- 
mark, that  as  Mr.  B.'s  reasoning,  by  which 
he  opposes  infant  baptism,  is  founded  upon 
this,  that  baptism  is  a  positive  institute;  the 
same  reasoning  is  also  applicable  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  because  that  is  likewise  a 
positive  rite.  This  Mr.  B.  will  not  deny, 
nor  can  he  deny  it,  without  overturning  his 
own  system.  Then,  as  the  institutes  are 
both  positive,  and  the  same  reasoning  will 
apply  to  both,  I  undertake  to  prove, 

1.  That,  according  to  the  principles  and 
reasonings  of  the  Baptists,  a  woman,  how- 
ever qualified,  can  have  no  right  at  all  to 
the  Lord's  supper. 

That  I  may  make  this  matter  as  plain  as 
possible  to  the  reader,  it  will  be  needful  to 
set  down  various  topics  from  which  female 
right  to  the  Lord's  supper  may  be,  or  is  at 
any  time  evinced.  I  say  then,  if  women 
have  a  right  to  the  Lord's  table,  that  right 
must  be  proved  from  some  or  all  of  the  fol- 
lowing considerations:  viz.  From  their  being 
in  the  favour  of  God — from  their  fitness  for 
such  an  ordinance,  as  godly  persons — from 
the  benefit  it  may  be  to  them — from  their 
church-membership — from  their  baptism — 
or,  lastly,  from  some  express  precept  or  ex- 
ample in  the  word  of  God.  Let  us  form 
each  of  these  into  a  question. 


140  A    SHORT    METHOD 

Question  1.  Can  the  right  of  a  woman  to 
the  Lord's  table  be  proved  from  their  inte- 
rest in  God's  favour. 

Answer.  Mr.  Booth  says,  No. — Vol.  ii. 
p.  227.  "But  supposing  it  were  clearly  evin- 
ced that  all  the  children  of  believers  are  inte- 
rested in  the  covenant  of  grace,  it  would  not 
certainly  follow  that  they  are  entitled  to  bap- 
tism. For  baptism,  being  a  branch  of  posi- 
tive worship,  [and  so  the  Lord's  supper] 
depends  entirely  on  the  sovereign  will  of  its 
Author,  which  will,  revealed  in  positive  pre- 
cepts, or  by  apostolic  examples,  is  the  only 
rule  of  its  administration." — "So  far  is  it 
from  being  a  fact,  that  an  interest  in  the  new 
covenant,  and  a  title  to  positive  institutes 
[baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper]  may  be  in- 
ferred the  one  from  the  other."  Page  228. 
"  All  reasoning  from  data  of  a  moral  kind, 
is  wide  of  the  mark." 

Note.  No  interest  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
or  the  new  covenant,  however  clearly  evin- 
ced, can  give  any  right  to  a  positive  institute, 
i.  e.  either  to  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Then  a  woman,  being  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  or  in  God's  favour,  has  no  right  on 
that  account  to  the  Lord's  supper;  for  all  this 
depends  only  on  positive  precept  or  exam- 
ple. 

Question  2.  Can  the  right  of  females  be 
proved  from  their  suitableness  to  that  ordi- 
nance, as  godly  persons? 

Answer.  Mr.  Booth  affirms  it  cannot.  Vol. 
i.  p.  227.  "  But  when  our  Divine  Lord,  ad- 


WITH    THE     BAPTISTS.  141 

dressing  his  disciples  in  a  positive  command, 
says,  '  It  shall  be  so;'  or,  when  speaking  by 
an  apostolic  example,  he  declares,  '  It  is  thus,' 
all  our  own  reasonings  about  fitness,  expe- 
diency, or  utility,  must  hide  their  impertinent 
heads."  Vol.  ii.  p.  22S.  *'  This  being  the 
case,  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  all  rea- 
soning from  data  of  a  moral  kind,  and  the 
supposed  fitness  of  things,  is  wide  of  the 
mark."  Vol.  ii.  p.  389.  "  But  were  we  to 
admit  the  great  Vitringa's  presumptions  as 
facts,  viz.  That  the  infants  of  beheving  pa- 
rents are  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  p.  377, 
yet,  while  positive  appointments  are  under 
the  direction  of  positive  laws,  it  would  not 
follow  that  such  children  should  be  bap- 
tized." 

Note.  Our  being  sanctified,  and  thereby 
possessing  a  fitness  for  a  positive  institute, 
gives  us  no  right  at  all  to  that  institute,  be 
what  it  may.  No  right  to  any  institute,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  B.,can  be  inferred  from  sanc- 
tification  of  the  Spirit;  and  all  our  reasoning 
from  fitness,  or  supposed  fitness,  is  altogether 
impertinent,  and  must  hide  its  impertinent 
head.  So  no  woman,  Mr.  B.  being  judge, 
has  a  right  to  the  Lord's  table,  on  account 
of  her  being  a  sanctified  or  godly  person. 

Question  3.  Can  the  right  of  females  to 
the  Lord's  table  be  proved  from  the  benefit 
or  usefulness  of  that  ordinance  to  them? 

Answer.  Mr.  Booth  denies  that  it  can. 
Vol.  i.  p.  23.  ''  Seeing  baptism  [and  the 
Lord's  supper  too]  is  as  really  and  entirely 


142  A    SHORT    METHOD 

a  positive  institution,  as  any  that  were  given 
to  the  chosen  tribes,  we  cannot  with  safety 
infer  either  the  n:iode,  or  the  subject  of  it, 
from  any  thing  short  of  a  precept,  or  a  pre- 
cedent, recorded  in  Scripture,  and  relating  to 
that  very  ordinance."  Vol.  i.  p.  227.  "  When 
our  divine  Lord,  addressing  his  disciples  in  a 
positive  command,  says,  '  It  shall  be  so,'  or, 
when  speaking  by  an  apostolic  example,  he 
declares, '  It  is  thus,'  all  our  own  reasonings 
about  fitness,  expediency,  or  iitiliiy,  must 
hide  their  impertinent  heads." 

Note.  To  reason  from  the  utility  or  bene- 
fit of  an  institute,  is  quite  an  impertinent 
thing;  so  that  we  cannot  say,  the  Lord's 
supper  may  be  useful  to  females;  therefore 
females  should  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
supper:  for,  as  Mr.  B.  affirms,  we  cannot 
with  safety  infer  either  mode  or  subject  from 
any  thing  short  of  precept,  or  precedent,  re- 
corded in  Scripture,  and  relating  to  the  very 
ordinance. 

Question  4.  Can  this  right  of  females  be 
proved  from  their  church-membership? 

Answer.  Mr.  B.  says  it  cannot.  Vol.  i. 
p,  22.  "  Nor  does  it  appear  from  the  records 
of  the  Old  Testament,  that  when  Jehovah 
appointed  any  branch  of  ritual  worship,  he 
left  either  the  subjects  of  it,  or  the  mode  of 
administration,  to  be  inferred  by  the  people, 
from  the  relation  in  which  they  stood  to  him- 
self, or  from  general  moral  precepts,  or  from 
any  branch  of  moral  worship."  In  the  an- 
swer to  Dr.  Williams,  p.  441,  Mr.  B.  says, 


WITH    THE     BAPTISTS.  143 

"  But  had  our  author  proved  that  infants  are 
born  members  of  the  visible  church,  it  would 
not  thence  have  been  inferable,  independent 
of  a  divine  precept,  or  an  apostolic  example, 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  baptize  them.  For  as 
baptism  is  a  positive  institute,"  &c. 

Note.  Mr.  Booth  says,  we  cannot  infer 
the  right  of  a  subject  to  a  positive  ordinance 
from  the  relation  he  stands  in  to  God,  not 
even  from  church-membership  ;  consequent- 
ly the  membership  of  a  female  gives  her  no 
right  to  the  Lord's  table. 

Question  5.  Can  the  right  of  females  to 
the  supper,  be  proved  from  their  baptism? 

Jlnswer.  No,  says  Mr.  Booth,  vol.  i.  p.  22. 
^'  Nor  does  it  appear  from  the  records  of  the 
Old  Testament,  that  when  Jehovah  appoint- 
ed any  branch  of  ritual  worship,  he  left  either 
the  subjects  of  it,  or  the  mode  of  administra- 
tion, to  be  inferred  by  the  people,  from  the 
relation  in  which  they  stood  to  himself,  or 
from  general  moral  precepts,  nor  yet  from 
diny  other  ivell-kiioivn  positive  rite.^^  Page 
23.  "  We  cannot  with  safety  infer  either  the 
mode  or  the  subject  of  it,  [a  positive  ordi- 
nance] from  any  thing  short  of  a  precept  or 
a  precedent  recorded  in  Scripture,  and  rela- 
ting to  that  very  ordinance.'^  This  is  the 
burden  of  Mr.  B.'s  song. 

Note.  Baptism  is  a  well-known  positive 
rite;  and  Mr.  B.  denies  that  the  mode  or 
subject  of  one  rite  could  be  inferred  from  an- 
other; consequently  baptism  can  infer  no 
right  to  the  Lord's  supper:  for,  upon  Mr. 


144  A     SHORT     METHOD 

B/s  word,  we  cannot  infer  either  mode  or 
subject  from  any  thing  short  of  precept  or 
example  relating  to  that  very  ordinance. 
Now,  as  the  right  of  females  to  the  Lord's 
table  cannot,  upon  the  principles  of  the  Bap- 
tists, be  proved  from  any  of  the  preceding 
topics,  there  remains  nothing  to  screen  them 
from  that  consequence  which  I  am  now 
fastening  upon  them,  but  some  express  com- 
mand or  explicit  example.  I  come  in  the 
last  place,  to  inquire, 

Question,  6.  Can  the  right  of  women  to 
the  Lord's  table  be  proved  from  any  express 
law  or  example  in  Holy  Scripture? 

Answer.  Here  Mr.  B.  affirms ; — and  I 
deny. 

It  will  be  necessary  here  to  give  the  reader 
a  complete  view  of  Mr.  B.'s  defence  of  fe- 
male communion.  This  defence  is  very 
short;  but,  on  his  principles,  it  is  the  most 
curious,  that,  I  think,  was  ever  offered  to  the 
public.  It  is  in  vol.  ii.  p.  73,  74,  and  is  as 
follows: 

"  In  regard  to  the  supposed  want  of  an 
explicit  warrant  for  admitting  women  to  the 
holy  table,  we  reply  by  demanding:  Does 
not  Paul,  when  he  says,  Let  a  man  examine 
himself,  and  so  let  him  eat,  enjoin  a  reception 
of  the  sacred  supper? — 1.  Does  not  the  term 
anthropos,  there  used,  often  stand  as  a  name 
of  our  species,  without  regard  to  sex? — 2. 
Have  we  not  the  authority  of  lexicographers, 
and,  which  is  incomparably  more,  the  sanc- 
tion of  common  sense,  for  understanding  it 


WITH    THE   BAPTISTS.  145 

thus  in  this  passage? — 3.  When  the  sexes 
are  distinguished  and  opposed,  the  word  for 
a  man  is  not  unthi^opos^  but  aneer.  This 
distinction  is  very  strongly  marked  in  that 
celebrated  saying  of  Thales:  the  Grecian 
sage  was  thankful  to  fortune  that  he  was 
anthropos,  one  of  the  human  species,  and 
not  a  beast — that  he  was  aneer,  a  man,  and 
not  a  woman. — 4.  Besides,  when  the  apos- 
tle delivered  to  the  church  at  Corinth  what 
he  had  received  of  the  Lord,  did  he  not  de- 
liver a  command — a  command  to  the  whole 
church,  consisting  of  women  as  well  as  men? 
When  he  further  says,  We,  being  many,  are 
one  bread  and  one  body;  for  we  are  all  par- 
takers of  that  one  bread;  does  he  not  speak 
of  women  as  well  as  of  men  ? —  5.  Again,  are 
there  any  pre-requisites  for  the  holy  supper, 
of  which  women  are  not  equally  as  capable 
as  men? — 6.  And  are  not  male  and  female 
one  in  Christ?" — This  is  the  whole  of  the 
defence,  and  I  confess  I  have  been  often  di- 
verted in  reading  it;  I  thought  it  a  curiosity, 
as  it  came  from  the  pen  of  Mr.  B.  who  is  so 
great  an  enemy  to  all  inference  and  analogy 
respecting  positive  institutes! 

The  whole  of  this  defence  I  have  divided 
into  six  pans,  and  these,  for  the  sake  of  great- 
er plainness,  are  distinguished  by  strokes  and 
figures.  Mr.  B.  in  these  six  parts,  aims  at 
three  distinct  arguments;  the  first  is  taken 
from  the  word  anthropos,  man,  which  in- 
cludes the  three  first  parts;  the  second  is 
taken  from  Paul's  address  to  the  church  as  a 
13 


146  A    SHORT    METHOD 

body,  and  takes  in  the  fourth  part;  the  third 
is  from  the  condition  and  quahfication  of  fe- 
males, and  comprehends  the  two  last  parts. 

Since  Mr.  B.  offers  this  defence  to  the  pub- 
He  as  proving  an  explicit  warrant  for  female 
communion;  we  must,  therefore,  first  of  all, 
lay  down  the  precise  idea  of  the  term  expli- 
cit. Explicit  denotes  that  which  is  direct, 
open,  and  plain;  and  which  immediately 
strikes  the  mind  without  reasoning  upon  it; 
e.  g.  Acts  viii.  12,  "They  were  baptized, 
both  men  and  women."  Here  the  reader  in- 
stantly discerns  both  sexes,  without  inferring 
from  any  other  place.  And  hence  the  term 
explicit  is  opposed  to  implication,  i.  e.  any 
thing  included  under  a  general  word.  And 
it  is  likewise  opposed  to  inference,  i.  e.  proof 
drawn  from  some  other  place.  An  explicit 
warrant,  therefore,  is  such  as  strikes  at  once; 
and  precludes  the  necessity  of  implication, 
reasoning,  or  inferring  from  some  other  topic. 
Such  a  warrant  Mr.  B.  insists  upon  for  infant 
baptism;  and  this  brings  him  under  the  neces- 
sity of  producing  the  same  for  female  com- 
munion. Which  if  he  be  unable  to  do,  all 
he  has  said  against  infants  will  literally  stand 
for  nothing,  and  his  books  on  that  subject 
will  be  even  worse  than  waste-paper. — Now 
for  the  explicit  warrant  for  female  com- 
munion. 

1.  We  begin  with  the  argument  from  the 
word  «?2/Aro/?o5,  man,  concerning  which  Mr. 
B.  says  three  things  to  evince  an  explicit 
warrant.     And  first,  Does  not  the  term  an- 


AVITH    THE    BArTISTS. 


147 


thropos,  man,  often  stand  as  a  name  of  our 
species  without  regard  to  sex?  What  a  lame- 
set-out  towards  an  explicit  warrant!  often 
stand  as  a  name  of  our  species!  That's  ad- 
mirable on  our  side!  This  is  what  the  learned 
call  presumptive  evidence,  and  this  is  what 
Mr.  B.  produces  towards  an  explicit  warrant. 
Does  he  think  presumptive  and  explicit  are 
the  same?  Whatever  advantage  Mr.  B.  may- 
wish  to  take,  yet  I  would  not  grant  this,  were 
I  in  his  place,  lest  some  Paedobaptist  should 
take  an  advantage  of  it  too.  This  presump- 
tive mode  of  arguing  on  a  positive  institute 
will  not  do  Mr.  B.  much  credit;  he  must  cer- 
tainly put  on  a  better  appearance  than  this. 

Well  then,  in  the  second  place;  "Have 
we  not,"  says  Mr.  B.,  the  "authority  of  lexi- 
cographers,and,  which  is  incomparably  more, 
the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for  understand- 
ing it  thus  in  that  passage?"  1  Cor.  xi.  28. 
The  authority  of  lexicographers!  and  com- 
mon sense!  Here  is  help  for  the  learned,  and 
the  unlearned,  that  both  may  be  able,  after 
consultation  had,  to  pick  out  an  explicit  war- 
rant! For  my  own  part,  I  do  not  much  like 
the  labour  of  turning  over  lexicographers  at 
the  best  of  times,  and  especially  for  an  ex- 
plicit warrant;  i.e.  a  warrant  that  strikes  the 
mind  at  once.  I  rather  think  Mr.  B.  if  he 
wished  people  to  labour  for  that  which  should 
be  had  without  any  labour  at  all,  should  have 
sent  his  inquiries  to  commentators  as  well  as 
to  lexicographers,  to  know  how  the  apostle 
used  the  word  in  question.    But  suppose  we 


148 


A    SHORT    METHOD 


depend  on  the  authority  of  these  lexicogra- 
phers, it  may  still  be  proper  to  ask,  How  it 
is  they  know  in  what  manner  the  apostle 
used  this  word!  Do  they  know  by  analogy, 
or  by  inferring  from  other  premises?  Ah! 
Mr.  B.!  1  fear  these  gentry  would  betray 
you.  And  to  give  you  your  due,  you  do  not 
seem  to  place  much  confidence  in  them;  for 
you  say,  that  the  authority  of  common  sense 
is  incomparably  more. 

Common  sense!  Hardly  one  in  five  hun- 
dred is  able  to  consult  a  lexicographer,  and 
therefore  Mr.  B.  in  order  to  make  his  expli- 
cit warrant  explicit,  furnishes  help  to  the 
unlearned.  Well,  common  sense,  since  it 
pleases  Mr.  B.  though  you  do  not  under- 
stand Greek,  to  submit  to  your  determina- 
tion, whether  anthropos  be  an  explicit  word 
for  a  woman;  and  so,  whether  there  be  any 
explicit  warrant  for  female  communion;  I 
will  take  the  liberty  of  asking  a  few  ques- 
tions. Do  you  know  what  Mr.  B.  means 
to  prove  from  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  Let  a  man, 
anthropos^  examine  himself,  &c.?  Yes,  he 
means  to  prove  an  explicit  warrant  for  fe- 
male communion.  Very  well.  What  is  an 
explicit  warrant?  It  is  that,  the  sense  of 
which  you  instantly  perceive,  without  the 
necessity  of  reasoning  upon  it,  or  inferring  it 
from  some  other  part.  Can  a  warrant  be 
deemed  explicit,  if  it  be  not  founded  on  ex- 
plicit words?  Certainly  not;  for  the  words 
constitute  the  warrant.  If  the  word  anthro- 
pos, maU;  be  used  sometimes  for  a  male  in- 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS. 


149 


fant  of  eight  days  old,  John  vii.  22,  23;  and 
perhaps  a  hundred  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  a  male  adult  only;  and  nineteen 
times  in  the  Septuagint  and  New  Testament, 
to  distinguish  the  male  from  the  female,  when 
both  are  named;  would  you,  after  all  this, 
consider  it  as  an  explicit  word  for  a  woman? 
No,  it  is  impossible.  Mr.  B.  says,  he  has 
your  authority  for  understanding  it  as  a  name 
of  our  species,  i.  e.  comprehending  male  and 
female,  in  this  place;  but  if  this  word  be  not 
an  explicit  word  for  a  woman,  how  do  you 
know  that  women  as  well  as  men  are  in- 
cluded in  it?  I  conclude  it  from  this,  that 
women  as  well  as  men  were  baptized ;  that 
they  were  received  into  the  church;  and 
therefore  must  be  implied  in  this  word.  You 
conclude  it  by  analogy,  implication,  and  in- 
ference! These  are  fine  materials  for  an  ex- 
plicit warrant! 

But  if  the  authority  of  lexicographers  and 
common  sense  will  not  bring  the  business 
home,  Mr.  B.  is  determined  to  make  use  of 
his  own  authority.  He  has  no  other  way 
of  preserving  the  credit  of  his  book;  and, 
therefore,  be  will  even  risk  his  own  reputa- 
tion, rather  than  lose  his  explicit  warrant. 
Ke  ventures  in  the  third  part  to  say,  that, 
"  when  the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  op- 
posed, the  word  for  a  man  is  not  anthropos, 
but  aneer.^^  This  is  Mr.  B.'s  own,  and  he 
himself  is  accountable  for  it.  The  assertion 
is  made  use  of,  to  give  a  colour  to  his  expli- 
cit warrant;  and  it  was,  no  doubt,  the  neces- 


150  A   SHORT  METHOD 

sity  of  his  case  that  drove  him  to  this.  He 
had  pressed  the  Paedobaptists,  through  a 
great  part  of  his  eight  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  pages,  to  produce  an  expUcit  warrant 
for  infant  baptism;  and  having  thereby  forged 
a  chain  for  himself,  he  is  now  entangled  in 
his  turn.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  in  this  place 
to  say,  that  this  assertion  of  Mr.  B.  is  un- 
founded. I  have  already  presented  the  rea- 
der with  nineteen  instances  out  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  and  New  Testament,  which  lie  di- 
rectly against  him.  Mr.  B.  in  order  to  pass 
off  this  assertion  of  his  with  a  better  grace, 
has  given  us  a  quotation,  though  not  at  all 
to  the  point,  from  Diogenes,  out  of  his  Life 
of  Thales.  What  I  have  to  say  respecting 
the  quotation,  is  this,  that  had  Diogenes,  or 
any  one  else,  affirmed  the  same  as  Mr.  B. 
(which  he  has  not,  nor  Thales  either,)  I 
would  have  linked  them  together  as  two 
false  Avitnesses.  And  I  say  further,  it  seems 
a  marvellous  thing,  that  Mr.  B.  should  be  so 
well  acquainted  with  Thales,  and  his  biogra- 
pher Diogenes;  and  at  the  same  time  so  ig- 
norant of  his  own  Bible. 

This  is  Mr.  B.'s  first  argument  to  prove 
an  explicit  warrant;  and  the  parts  of  which 
it  is  composed  are  three.  It  is  said,  indeed, 
"  a  threefold  cord  is  not  easily  broken."  But 
Solomon  did  not  mean  such  a  cord  as  Mr. 
B.'s;  his  is  what  people  commonly  call  a 
rope  of  sand;  which  will  by  no  means  en- 
dure stretching.  Here  we  have,  in  this  part, 
a  presumption  to  begin  with;  and  next,  im- 


WITH  THE   BAPTISTS.  151 

plication  and  inference;  and  lastly,  an  un- 
founded declaration  to  close  the  whole.  This 
is  Mr.  B.'s  method  of  making  up  an  explicit 
warrant!  And  every  one  knows,  that  when 
presumption  takes  the  lead,  it  is  no  wonder 
if  falsehood  should  bring  up  the  rear. 

2.  I  come  now  to  take  notice  of  his  second 
argument,  taken  from  Paul's  address  to  the 
church  as  a  body;  and  which  takes  in  the 
fourth  part  of  his  defence  of  female  commu- 
nion. His  words  are  these:  "Besides,  when 
the  apostle  delivered  to  the  church  at  Cor- 
inth what  he  had  received  of  the  Lord;  did 
he  not  deliver  a  command — a  command  to 
the  whole  church,  consisting  of  women  as 
well  as  men?"  When  he  further  says,  "  We 
being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body; 
for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread ; 
does  he  not  speak  of  women  as  well  as  men  ?" 
This  is  Mr.  B.'s  way  of  producing  an  expli- 
cit warrant;  did  he  not  deliver  a  command 
to  the  whole  church,  consisting  of  women  as 
well  as  men?  and  did  he  not  speak  of  wo- 
men as  well  as  men?  It  was  Mr.  B.'s  place 
to  show  by  explicit  words,  that  he  did  speak 
of  women  as  well  as  men;  but  since  he  has 
only  proposed  his  questions,  and  has  not 
himself  affirmed  any  thing,  he  seems  willing 
to  throw  the  work  of  inferring  off  from  him- 
self upon  the  reader.  Mr.  B.  is  an  artful  dis- 
putant; he  knew  that  reasoning  by  inference, 
which  he  had  so  often  exploded,  would  be 
highly  unbecoming  in  him;  and  therefore,  to 
avoid  that,  he  puts  it  into  the  form  of  a  ques- 


152  A  SHORT  METHOD 

tion,  as  if  he  would  say,  I  leave  you,  my  rea- 
der, to  draw  the  inference. 

If  by  the  comn:iand  in  this  argument  Mr. 
B.  means  these  words,  "Let  a  man  examine 
himself,  &c."  he  had  spoken  upon  it  in  his 
way  before:  and  if  it  had  contained  any  ex- 
plicit warrant  for  female  communion,  it  was 
certainly  in  his  power  to  show  it:  There 
could,  therefore,  be  no  necessity  to  produce 
it  again,  and  especially  in  the  obscure  man- 
ner he  has  done.  But  if  that  be  the  com- 
mand he  intends,  I  defy  him  to  show  one 
explicit  word  for  female  communion  in  any 
part  of  it.  He  has,  indeed,  in  what  he 
thought  fit  to  advance  upon  it,  ventured  a 
presumption,  an  inference,  and  an  unfounded 
declaration;  of  all  which  I  have  spoken  suf- 
ficiently already. 

But  I  rather  think  he  means  some  other 
command,  because  he  introduces  it  with  the 
word  ''  besides,"  as  if  intending  some  fresh 
matter.  And  if  so,  I  know  no  more  than 
the  pen  in  my  hand,  what  command  it  is  he 
drives  at.  But  be  it  what  it  may,  he  asks, 
whether  it  was  not  to  women  as  well  as 
men?  And  I,  on  the  other  hand,  declare  I 
neither  know  what  it  was,  nor  to  whom  it 
was  directed.  It  certainly  was  his  duty  to 
have  specified  what  the  command  was;  and 
if  it  was  a  command  to  receive  the  Lord's 
supper,  he  should  then  have  proved  that 
females  were  as  explicitly  named  therein  as 
males.  Does  Mr.  B.  think  that,  after  all  he 
has  said  about  express  commands,  he  him- 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  153 

self  is  to  take  any  thing  for  granted,  or  to 
form  a  conclusion  by  a  guess?  It  must  be 
absurd  in  a  man  like  him,  who,  when  he 
pretends  to  produce  an  explicit  warrant, 
talks  to  his  reader  about  some  unknown 
command ;  and  then,  instead  of  specifying 
what  this  command  was,  and  showing  that 
women  were  expressly  named  therein,  leaves 
him,  in  the  best  way  he  can,  to  conjecture 
the  whole. 

Mr.  B.  having  expressed  himself  plainly 
on  the  first  argument,  did  thereby  lay  him- 
self open  to  detection,  and  it  became  an  easy 
business  to  expose  him  for  his  presumptive 
argument,  his  inference,  and  his  assertion: 
but  he  has  saved  himself  from  that,  in  his 
second  argument,  merely  by  the  obscurity 
of  his  language.  Saved  himself,  did  I  say, 
by  the  obscurity  of  his  language?  No,  far 
from  it.  A  man  renders  himself  sufficiently 
ridiculous,  who  comes  full  of  his  explicit 
warrant  for  female  communion,  and  then 
says  to  his  reader,  Did  not  the  Apostle  de- 
liver a  command  to  women,  as  well  as  to 
men?  and  did  he  not  speak  to  women,  as 
well  as  to  men  ?  When  it  was  his  business 
to  show  that  he  did,  and  to  bring  explicit 
words  to  prove  it. 

3.  I  advert,  lastly,  to  Mr.  B.'s  third  argu- 
ment, which  is  taken  from  the  condition  and 
qualification  of  females,  and  comprehends 
the  two  last  parts.  Thus  he  expresses  him- 
self: "Again,  are  there  any  pre-requisites 
for  the  holy  supper,  of  which  women  are 
14 


154 


A    SHORT    METHOD 


not  equally  capable  as  men?"  And  are  not 
male  and  female  one  in  Christ? — I  have  no 
reason  to  complain  of  the  ambiguity  of  this 
argument,  any  more  than  that  of  the  first;  it 
is  sufficiently  plain,  that  even  he  that  runs 
may  read  it.  I  shall,  therefore,  only  briefly 
observe  upon  it,  that 

The  mode  of  reasoning,  which  Mr.  B.  has 
openly  adopted  in  this  place,  is  that  of  ana- 
logy. The  analogy  lies  between  the  male 
and  the  female,  thus:  That  the  one  has  the 
same  pre-requisites  for  the  Lord's  table  as 
the  other,  and  both  the  one  and  the  other  are 
in  Jesus  Christ.  From  hence  arises  an  in- 
ference: If  botli  have  the  same  relation  to 
Christ,  and  the  same  pre-requisites  for  the 
holy  supper,  then  the  female  must,  by  just 
consequence,  have  the  same  right  to  the  holy 
supper  as  the  male. 

Well  said,  Mr.  B.!  This  is  so  neat,  that 
I  could  almost  find  in  my  heart  to  forget  that 
explicit  warrant,  which  you  had  spoken  of 
some  time  ago.  Now  you  talk  like  a  logical 
man,  and  a  generous  man  too ;  for  your  last 
is  better  by  far  than  your  first.  It  must  be 
much  better  to  be  thus  open,  than  to  hazard 
your  reputation  by  any  thing  forced,  or  any 
thing  false.  You  see  what  a  good  thing  it 
is  to  have  analogy  and  inference  ready  at 
hand,  and  how  admirably  adapted  they  are 
to  help  at  a  dead  lift.  We  should  not  des- 
pise any  help,  as  we  know  not  how  soon  we 
may  need  it;  and,  to  give  you  your  due,  you 
have  been  neither  too  proud  nor  too  stub- 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  155 

born  to  make  use  of  this.  You  may  be  the 
more  easily  excused  for  what  you  have  said 
agaitist  analogy  and  inference,  for,  as  you 
are  a  Baptist,  what  you  have  said  was  a 
matter  of  consistency;  but  now  you  are  be- 
come a  patron  of  female  communion,  the 
case  is  altered,  and  you  are  altered  with  it. 
But,  at  the  same  time,  this  is  no  more  than 
what  all  the  Baptists,  with  whom  I  have 
ever  conversed  on  the  subject,  have  done; 
and  if  it  will  be  any  comfort  to  you  in  this 
case,  I  can  tell  you,  with  great  certainty, 
that  I  have  met  with  many  of  your  frater- 
nity who  have  been  as  great  changelings  in 
this  business  as  yourself.  At  present  I  only 
blame  you  for  this,  that,  under  the  colour 
of  explicit  proof,  you  should  introduce,  and 
endeavour  to  pass  off,  nothing  better,  but 
something  far  worse,  than  inferential  reason- 
ing. 

I  would  just  remark  on  what  Mr.  B.  has 
advanced  in  support  of  his  explicit  warrant, 
that  the  defence  he  has  set  up  carries  in  it  its 
own  conviction.  I  mean  with  respect  to  the 
number  of  particulars — the  manner  in  which 
they  are  proposed — and  the  matter  of  which 
they  consist. 

Now  it  is  the  nature  of  an  explicit  warrant 
to  show  itself  instantly  to  the  mind  of  the 
reader;  and  its  own  evidence  is  the  strongest 
it  can  have;  the  consequence  is  that  he  who 
really  produces  one,  neither  can,  nor  does 
need,  to  strengthen  it  by  any  reasons  he  can 
advance;  e.g.  Were  I  called  upon  to  pro- 


156  A    SHORT    METHOD 

diice  an  explicit  warrant  for  female  baptism, 
I  would  only  allege  those  words  in  Acts  viii. 
12.  "They  were  baptized  both  men  and  wo- 
men.'' Tiiese  words  strike  the  mind  at  once, 
and  no  reasoning  whatever  can  add  any  thing 
to  their  strength  or  evidence;  but  Mr.  B.,by 
introducing  six  particulars,  shows  plainly  that 
neither  of  them  is  explicit,  and  that  it  is  not 
in  his  power  to  produce  any  explicit  warrant 
at  all;  for  had  any  one  of  these  been  expli- 
cit for  female  communion,  he  might  very  well 
have  thrown  away  all  the  rest. 

In  this  view  there  is  another  thing  remark- 
able in  his  defence,  and  that  is,  that  every 
sentence  but  one  runs  in  the  form  of  a  ques- 
tion to  the  reader.  Instead  of  advancing  his 
explicit  proof,  Mr.  B.  comes  to  the  reader  in 
forma  pauperis^  with  his  petition  in  his 
mouth,  as  if  he  would  say,  0  generous  rea- 
der, grant  me  what  I  ask,  or — my  cause  is 
ruined!  I  have  been  driving  against  infant 
baptism  with  all  my  might,  crying  out,  No 
explicit  warrant,  no  explicit  warrant  for  in- 
fant baptism  in  all  the  word  of  God!  And 
now,  as  I  am  called  upon  myself  to  give  an 
explicit  warrant  for  female  communion,  I 
beseech  thee,  indulgent  reader,  to  admit  my 
presumption,  implication,  inference,  and  ana- 
logy, for  explicit  proof  I  said  that  every 
sentence  in  this  defence  but  one  was  put  in 
the  form  of  a  question.  Now  what  is  still 
more  remarkable  is  this,  that  that  one  sen- 
tence, which  is  the  only  affirmative  in  the 
whole  defence,  should  be  the  very  false  as- 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  157 

sertion  against  which  I  have  ah'eady  produ- 
ced nineteen  instances. 

If  we  pass  from  the  number  of  parts  which 
are  contained  in  this  defence,  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  are  presented  to  the  reader, 
and  come  to  the  matter  of  it,  we  may  say  of 
that,  that  there  is  not  a  single  article  in  it, 
but  what  is  either  false,  or  presumptive,  or 
inference,  or  analogy,  or  implication.  Every 
part  is  reducible  to  one  or  other  of  these ;  and 
there  is  not  one  explicit  word  for  female  com- 
munion throughout  the  whole.  Such  a  de- 
fence as  this  would  not  have  done  very  well 
in  the  hands  of  a  Psedobaptist;  but  when 
adopted  by  a  Baptist,  it  is  ridiculous  in  him- 
self, and  an  insufferable  abuse  of,  and  a  bur- 
lesque upon,  his  reader.  In  short,  there  is 
no  explicit  warrant  to  be  had. 

Now  to  the  point.  I  was  to  prove  that, 
according  to  the  principles  and  reasonings  of 
the  Baptists,  a  woman,  however  qualified, 
can  have  no  right  at  all  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
We  have  seen,  on  the  one  hand,  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  produce  an  explicit  warrant  for 
female  communion,  and,  on  the  other,  Mr.  B. 
affirms  that  they  should  not  be  admitted  with- 
out' one;  the  result,  therefore,  is,  that,  ac- 
cording to  ]Mr.  B.'s  mode  of  reasoning,  no 
woman  has  any  right  at  all  to  communicate 
at  the  Lord's  table;  and  as  Mr.  B..  agrees 
with  Baptists  in  general  in  this  point,  the 
same  is  true  of  the  principles  and  reasonings 
of  them  all. — This  is  the  first  consequence 
which  I  undertook  to  make  good  among  the 


158  A    SHORT    METHOD 

Baptists,  and  from  which  they  have  only  two 
ways  of  clearing  themselves.  They  must 
eiiher^ive  up  their  mode  of  reasoning  against 
infants,  or,  if  they  do  not  choose  this,  they 
must  produce  the  same  express  proof  for  fe- 
male communion  as  they  require  for  infant 
baptism. 

As  Mr.  B.  has  plainly  asserted  that  there 
can  be  no  argument  for  female  communion 
but  such  as  is  founded  on  positive  preceptor 
example,  recorded  in  Scripture,  and  relating 
to  that  very  ordinance,  it  lies  upon  him  to 
come  forward  and  produce  his  warrant,  or 
give  up  female  communion.  If  I  were  to 
answer  his  book,  I  would  turn  the  inquiry 
from  infant  baptism  to  female  communion, 
and  then  put  it  upon  him  to  make  good  his 
conclusion  for  the  right  of  females  upon 
the  very  same  principles  which  he  employs 
against  infants.  And  I  do  now  in  good  earn- 
est put  this  upon  him,  and  heartily  invite  him 
to  the  task,  being  verily  persuaded  that  if 
this  subject  were  thoroughly  sifted,  it  would 
be  the  speediest  mothod  of  adjusting  the  de- 
bate. 

When  I  had  compared  what  Mr.  B.  has 
said  against  infants  with  what  he  has  said  in 
defence  of  women,  I  have  been  ready  to  sus- 
pect that  he  designed  his  book  should  operate 
on  the  Psedobaptist  side;  for,  when  speaking 
against  infant  baptism,  he  carries  his  demand 
of  express,  unequivocal,  and  explicit  proof  so 
high,  and  enlarges  upon  it  so  much,  as  if,  by 
making  it  exceedingly  remarkable,  he  wished 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  159 

some  one  to  compare  the  whole  with  his  de- 
fence of  female  communion,  and  perceived 
that  the  moment  this  was  done,  the  cause  of 
the  Baptists  would  fall.  And  had  Mr.  B. 
been  a  person  whose  character  for  integrity- 
was  not  known,  it  would  have  been  a  matter 
of  some  difficulty  with  me  to  determine 
whether  he  did  not  design,  in  a  covert  way, 
to  run  down  the  Baptists'  side;  but  knowing 
him  to  be  a  man  of  good  reputation,  I  rea- 
dily acquit  him  of  this;  yet  I  think,  at  the 
same  time,  that  his  book,  though  written  on 
the  Baptist  side,  will  do  more  towards  over- 
turning the  Baptist  sentiment  than  any  one 
that  has  been  written  for  many  centuries. 

Thus  much  for  the  first  consequence,  viz. 
that,  according  to  the  reasonings  of  the  Bap- 
tists, no  woman  has  any  more  right  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  than  an  infant  has  to  baptism. 
But  they,  not  liking  this  consequence,  are 
induced  to  set  up  a  defence  of  female  com- 
munion on  the  ground  of  express  warrant; 
and  in  doing  this,  they  prevaricate,  discard 
their  own  principle,  reason  by  analogy  and 
inference,  and  fall  into  self-contradiction: 
This  is  the  second  consequence  I  have  before 
mentioned,  and  which  I  will  now  plainly 
evince. 

Mr.  Booth,  in  vol.  ii.  p.  509,  expresses  his 
surprise  at  the  inconsistency  of  Psedobaptists 
with  each  other.  "  But  is  it  not,"  says  he, 
"  I  appeal  to  the  reader;  is  it  not  a  very  sin- 
gular phenomenon  in  the  religious  world, 
that  so  many  denominations  of  protestants 


160  A    SHOET    METHOD 

should  all  agree  in  one  general  conclusion, 
and  yet  differ  to  such  an  extreme  about  the 
premises  whence  it  should  be  inferred?"  To 
this  I  only  say,  if  it  be  a  very  singular  phe- 
nomenon for  a  number  of  persons  to  be  in- 
consistent with  each  other,  it  must  be  a  more 
singular  one  still  for  one  man  to  differ  from 
himself.  We  will  take  a  view  of  Mr.  B.  in  a 
double  capacity — as  a  patron  of  female  com- 
munion, and  as  an  opposer  of  infant  bap- 
tism. 

Mr.  B.'s  defence  of  female  communion 
does  not  take  up  one  clear  page;  the  errone- 
ous statement,  and  the  quotation  made  use 
of  to  set  it  off,  make  up  more  than  one  third 
of  the  defence;  so  there  are  only  nineteen 
lines  remaining:  I  will,  therefore,  select  some 
passages  from  his  opposition  to  infant  bap- 
tism, and  place  them  against  what  he  has  ad- 
vanced, in  these  nineteen  lines,  in  defence  of 
female  communion.  I  do  this  to  show  that 
a  Baptist  cannot  maintain  that  ground  on 
which  he  opposes  infant  baptism — that  he  is 
compelled  to  desert  his  own  principle,  and 
does  actually  prevaricate,  and  contradict  him- 
self; from  which,  as  well  as  from  other  to- 
pics, it  will  appear,  that  the  cause  of  the 
Baptists  is  a  lost  cause.  I  shall  now  intro- 
duce Mr.  B.  in  his  double  capacity. 

I.  When  Mr.  B.  is  an  opposer  of  infant 
baptism, he  speaketh  on  this  wise:  Vol.  ii.  p. 
22S.  "This  being  the  case,  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  all  reasoning  from  data  of  a 
moral  kind,  and  the  supposed  fitness  of  things, 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  161 

is  wide  of  the  mark.''  Vol.  i.  p.  227.  ''But 
when  our  divine  Lord,  addressing  his  disci- 
ples in  a  positive  command,  says,  '  It  shall 
be  so,'  or  when,  speaking  by  an  apostolic 
example,  he  declares,  *  It  is  thus,' all  our 
own  reasonings  about^/«e.s5,  expediency,  or 
utility,  must  hide  their  impertinent  heads." 

But  when  Mr.  B.  becomes  a  defender  of 
female  communion,  he  expresseth  himself 
thus:  Vol.  ii.  p.  73,  74.  ''  In  regard  to  the 
supposed  want  of  an  explicit  warrant  for  ad- 
mitting women  to  the  holy  table,  we  reply 
by  demanding — Are  there  any  pre-requisites 
for  the  holy  supper,  of  which  women  are  not 
equally  capable  as  men?"  Thus  Mr.  B.  He 
only  asks  the  question,  and  leaves  the  infer- 
ence to  the  reader.  This  is  artfully  done,  for 
fear  he  should  seem  to  prove  a  right  to  a 
posiiive  institute  by  inference. 

The  reader  is  desired  to  observe,  that  Mr. 
B.  in  opposing  infant  baptism,  will  admit  of 
no  reasoning  from  moral  data,  or  the  sup- 
posed fitness  of  things,  and  says  that  all  such 
reasoning  is  wide  of  the  mark.  And  he  like- 
wise says,  "  that  all  our  reasonings  about  fit- 
ness— must  hide  their  impertinent  heads." 
But,  in  defending  female  communion,  he 
asks,  "  Are  there  any  pre-requisites  for  the 
holy  supper,  of  which  women  are  not  equally 
capable  as  men?"  Here  Mr.  B.,  the  patron 
of  female  communion,  adopts  the  same  rea- 
soning which  Mr.  B.,  the  opposer  of  infant 
baptism,  had  declared  to  be  wide  of  the  mark. 
As  the  patron  of  females,  he  will  reason  from 


162  A    SHORT    METHOD 

the  fitness  of  things — '^are  there  any  pre- 
requisites for  the  holy  supper,  of  which  wo- 
men are  not  equally  capable  as  men?"  As 
the  opposer  of  infants,  he  insisted  that  all 
such  reasonings  should  hide  their  impertinent 
heads.  If  the  patron  of  females  and  the  op- 
poser  of  infants  be  the  same  person,  he  must 
be  guily  of  gross  inconsistency;  for  he  at- 
tempts to  pass  off  that  reasoning  upon  others, 
which  he  himself  declares  to  be  wide  of  the 
mark;  and  will  needs  bring  those  heads  of 
reasoning  to  light,  which  he  brands  with  the 
name  of  impertinent,  and  says  that  their  im- 
pertinent heads  must  be  hid.  This  in  and 
out  proceeding  of  the  patron  of  females  and 
opposer  of  infants  I  submit  to  the  judgment 
of  the  reader,  and  leave  the  patron  and  op- 
poser to  settle  the  matter  the  best  way  he 
can. 
*j^  II.  Again,  Mr.  B.  when  opposing  infant 
baptism,  says,  vol.  i.  p.  23.  "Seeing  baptism 
is  really  and  entirely  a  positive  institution, 
we  cannot  with  safety  infer  either  the  mode 
or  the  subject  of  it  from  any  thing  short  of  a 
precept,  or  a  precedent,  recorded  in  Scripture, 
and  relating  to  that  very  ordinance."  Voi.  ii. 
p.  227.  "  Baptism,  being  a  branch  of  positive 
worship,  depends  entirely  on  the  sovereign 
will  of  its  Author;  which  will,  revealed  in 
positive  precepts,  or  by  apostolic  examples, 
is  the  only  rule  of  its  administration."  And 
in  vol.  ii.  p.  44,  he  says,  "The  inquirer  has 
nothing  to  do  but  open  the  New  Testament, 
and  consult  a  few  express  commands  and 


M'lTH    THE     BAPTISTS.  163 

plain  examples,  and  consider  the  natural  and 
proper  sense  of  the  words,  and  then,  without 
the  aid  of  commentators,  or  the  help  of  criti- 
cal acumen,  he  may  decide  on  the  question 
before  him."  A  little  after  he  speaks  of  ex- 
press commands  and  express  examples, which 
is  his  uniform  mode  of  expression  when  op- 
posing infants. 

But  when  Mr.  B.  comes  to  defend  female 
communion,  he  expresses  himself  thus:  Vol. 
ii.  p.  73.  ''  In  regard  to  the  supposed  want 
of  an  explicit  warrant  for  admitting  women 
to  the  holy  table,  we  reply  by  demanding — 
Does  not  the  term  anthropos,  there  used, 
often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species  without 
regard  to  sex?  Have  we  not  the  authority 
of  lexicographers,  and,  which  is  incompara- 
bly more,  the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for 
understanding  it  thus  in  that  passage?  When 
the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  opposed,  the 
word  for  a  man  is  woianthropos  but  aneer."" 

The  reader  is  requested  to  notice,  that  Mr. 
B.,  as  an  opposer  of  infant  baptism,  contends 
for  precept,  positive  precept,  express  com- 
mands, or  express  examples,  and  says,  in  his 
index,  that  the  law  of  institutes  must  be  ex- 
press, &c.  but,  as  a  defender  of  female  commu- 
nion, he  takes  up  with  an  ambiguous  word, 
a  mere  presumptive  proof — <'  Does  not,'^  says 
he,  "  the  term  anthy^opos  often  stand  as  a 
name  of  our  species?"  and  this  presumption 
he  attempts  to  strengthen  by  an  error,  of 
which  I  have  already  spoken.  As  an  opposer 
of  infants  he  says  the  inquirer  may  decide 


164  A    SHORT    METHOD 

the  question  without  the  aid  of  commentators, 
or  the  help  of  critical  acumen;  but  as  a  pa- 
tron of  females,  he  first  furnishes  his  reader 
with  an  ambiguous  word,  and  then  sends 
him  to  lexicographers  to  have  it  manufac- 
tured into  a  positive  one.  Since  it  was  not 
in  Mr.  B.'s  power  to  form  a  positive  precept 
out  of  an  ambiguous  word,  without  the  aid 
of  a  Uttle  inference,  he  very  artfully  throws 
it  into  the  hands  of  lexicographers  and  com- 
mon sense  to  effect  this  business  for  him. 
And  one  cannot  sufficiently  admire  how  te- 
nacious he  is  of  express  precept  when  an  op- 
poser  of  infants,  while  at  the  same  time,  as 
the  ])atron  of  females,  he  is  so  very  comply- 
ing, that  he  can  even  admit  presumptive  evi- 
dence to  pass  for  an  explicit  warrant. 

III.  Further,  Mr.  B.,  in  opposing  infant 
baptism,  expresses  himself  thus :  Vol.  i.  p.  22, 
"Nor  does  it  appear  from  the  records  of  the 
Old  Testament,  that  when  Jehovah  appointed 
any  branch  of  ritual  worship,  he  left  either 
the  subjects  of  it,  or  the  mode  of  administra- 
tion, to  be  inferred  by  the  people  from  the 
relation  in  which  they  stood  to  himself,  or 
from  general  moral  precepts,  or  from  any 
branch  of  his  moral  worship,  nor  yet  from 
au)^  other  well-known  positive  rite;  but  he 
gave  them  special  directions  relating  to  the 
very  case."  In  vol.  ii.  p.  227,  he  says,  *'  But 
supposing  it  were  clearly  evinced  that  all  the 
children  of  believers  are  interested  in  the  co- 
venant of  grace,-it  would  not  certainly  follow 
that  they  are  entitled  to  baptism;  for  baptism, 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  165 

being  a  branch  of  positive  worship,  depends 
entirely  on  the  sovereign  will  of  its  Author, 
which  will,  revealed  in  positive  precepts,  or 
by  apostolic  examples,  is  the  only  rule  of  its 
adnriinistration."  And  in  the  same  page  he 
says,  "  So  far  is  it  from  being  a  fact,  that  an 
interest  in  the  new  covenant,  and  a  title  to 
positive  institutes  may  be  inferred  the  one 
from  the  other." 

But  in  proving  the  right  of  women  to  the 
Lord's  table,  he  says,  vol.  ii.  p.  73,  74.  In 
regard  to  the  supposed  want  of  an  explicit 
warrant  for  admitting  women  to  the  holy 
table,  we  reply  by  demanding — Are  not 
male  and  female  one  in  Christ?'"  As  if  he 
should  say,  if  a  female  be  in  Christ,  which  is 
the  same  as  being  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
she  must  have  a  right  to  a  positive  institute. 
Here  is  art  and  inference  together!  The  art 
appears  in  this,  that  Mr.  B.  would  not  be 
seen  to  draw  the  inference  himself,  but  leaves 
that  to  a  Psedobaptist,  who  is  more  accus- 
tomed to  that  kind  of  work. 

But  leaving  Mr.  B.'s  art  in  shunning  to 
draw  the  inference,  I  would  desire  the  reader 
to  attend  him  once  more  in  his  double  capa- 
city. In  that  of  an  opposer  of  infants,  he 
affirms,  that  a  right  to  a  positive  ordinance  is 
not  to  be  inferred  from  the  relation  we  stand 
in  to  God;  when  a  patron  of  females, he  will 
infer  their  right  to  the  Lord's  supper  from 
their  being  one  in  Christ  with  males.  As  an 
opposer  of  infants,  he  insists  that  an  interest 
in  the   covenant   of  grace,   though   clearly 


166 


A   SHORT   METHOD 


evinced,  gives  no  claim  to  an  instituted  rite; 
as  a  patron  of  females,  he  contends  that  if  a 
woman  be  interested  in  Christ,  she  has  there- 
fore a  right  to  such  an  institute.  As  an  op- 
poser,  he  declares  it  is  far  from  being  a  fact, 
that  an  interest  in  the  nev/  covenant,  and  a 
title  to  positive  institutes,  may  be  inferred 
the  one  from  the  other;  as  a  patron,  he  will 
do  that  which  is  so  far  from  being  a  fact. 
He  infers  the  one  from  the  other,  the  right 
from  the  interest — are  not  male  and  female 
one  in  Christ?  He  is  very  inflexible  as  an 
opposer,  and  very  pliant  as  a  patron.  So 
that,  however  the  opposer  of  infants  may 
differ  in  his  mode  of  reasoning  from  Psedo- 
baptists,  the  patron  of  females  finds  it  neces- 
sary to  reason  in  the  same  way.  It  is  a  pity 
the  patron  and  opposer  do  not  agree,  as  it 
would  certainly  be  for  the  credit  of  both  to 
settle  on  some  uniform  mode  of  logic. 

Before  I  turn  from  this,  I  would  just 
glance  at  Mr.  B.'s  defence  of  female  com- 
munion by  itself.  Mr.  B.  should  have  made 
this  a  distinct  chapter,  and  should  have 
placed  a  title  at  the  head  of  it;  but  as  he  has 
not  done  this,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  doing 
it  for  him;  and  the  reader  may  observe,  in 
the  mean  time,  how  the  chapter  and  title  will 
agree.  Mr.  B.  begins  his  defence  in  these 
words:  "In  regard  to  the  supposed  want  of 
an  explicit  warrant  for  admitting  women  to 
the  holy  table,  we  reply,'^  &c.  This  will 
furnish  with  a  title,  which  will  run  thus: 


WITH  THE   BAPTISTS.  167 


The  right  of  Women  to  the  Lord's  Table,  found- 
ed on  explicit  warrant. 

N.  B.  An  explicit  warrant  for  females  is  one  wherein 
their  sex  is  specified,  and  is  opposed  to  all  implication, 
analogy,  and  inference Now  for  the  Chapter. 

"Does  not  Paul,  when  he  says,  <  Let  a 
man  examine  himself  and  so  let  him  eat,' 
enjoin  a  reception  of  the  sacred  supper? 
Does  not  the  term  anthrdpos,  there  used, 
often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species,  with- 
out regard  to  sex?"  [This  is  presumptive 
proof.]  "  Have  we  not  the  authority  of 
lexicographers,  and,  which  is  incomparably 
more,  the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for  un- 
derstanding it  thus  in  that  passsage  ?"  [This 
is  inference.]  "  When  the  sexes  are  distin- 
guished and  opposed,  the  word  for  a  man 
is  not  nnthropos,  but  aiieer.^^  [This  is  an 
error.]  "'  When  the  apostle  delivered  to  the 
church  at  Corinth  what  he  had  received  of 
the  Lord,  did  he  not  deliver  a  command — a 
command  to  the  whole  church,  consisting  of 
women  as  well  as  men?"  [This  at  best  is 
implication  or  presumption.]  "  When  he 
further  says.  We,  being  many,  are  one  bread 
and  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of 
that  one  bread,  does  he  not  speak  of  women 
as  well  as  of  men?"  [This  is  the  same  as 
before;  and  Mr.  Pierce  would  have  said, 
"infants,"  as  well  as  men  and  women.] 
"  Again,  are  there  any  pre-requisites  for  the 
holy  supper  of  which  women  are  not'equally 
capable  as  men?"    [This  is  analogy  and  in- 


168 


A    SHORT   METHOD 


ference  together.]  ^'  And  are  not  male  and 
female  one  in  Christ?'^  [This  is  analogy  and 
inference  again.] 

The  reader  will  observe  that  the  Title  pro- 
mises an  explicit  warrant,  that  is,  a  warrant 
in  which  the  sex  is  specified,  and  which 
stands  opposed  to  implication,  analogy,  and 
inference;  but  the  chapter  produces  nothing 
explicit,  the  whole  being  nothing  more  than 
a  compound  of  presumption,  implication,  an- 
alogy, and  inference. 

The  whole  of  Mr.  B.'s  conduct  in  this 
affair  brings  to  mind  a  passage  of  Mr.  Alsop, 
which  Mr.  B.  has  quoted  in  vol.  ii.  p.  507. 
"The  reader  Avill  learn  at  least  how  impossi- 
ble it  is  for  error  to  be  consonant  to  itself. 
As  the  two  mill-stones  grind  one  another  as 
well  as  the  grain,  and  as  the  extreme  vices 
oppose  each  other  as  well  as  the  intermedi- 
ate virtue  that  lies  between  them,  so  have 
all  errors  this  fate,  (and  it  is  the  best  quality 
they  are  guilty  of,)  that  they  duel  one  an- 
other with  the  same  heat  that  they  oppose 
the  truth.''  Mr.  B.'s  two  mill-stones  are  his 
opposition  to  infant  baptism,  and  his  defence 
of  female  communion.  These  two  militant 
parts,  like  the  two  mill-stones,  do  operate  in 
hostile  mode,  and  rub,  and  chafe,  and  grind 
each  other,  as  well  as  infant  baptism,  which 
lies  between.  And  it  is  certainly  the  best 
property  Mr.  B.'s  book  is  possessed  of,  that 
it  exhibits  the  auihor  in  his  double  capacity, 
not  only  as  militating  against  the  baptism  of 
infants,  but  as  duelling  and  battering  himself 


WITH   THE   BAPTISTS  169 

with  the  same  heat  which  he  opposes  that. 
Three  short  reflections  on  this  conduct  of 
Mr.  B.  and  one  apology,  will  finish  this  part 
of  the  subject. 

I.  There  is  something  in  this  conduct  very 
untair.  No  man  should  bind  a  burden  on 
others,  which  he  himself  would  not  touch 
with  one  of  his  fingers.  Can  it  be  deemed 
an  upright  proceeding  in  Mr.  B.  to  cry  down 
all  reasoning  by  analogy  and  inference  on  a 
positive  institute,  and  after  that  use  the  same 
reasoning,  and  even  worse,  himself.''  Can  it 
be  considered  fair  to  demand,  repeatedly  and 
loudly  to  demand,  special,  express,  and  ex- 
plicit proof,  and  then  put  off  the  reader  with 
presumption,  inference,  and  analogy?  Cer- 
tainly he  should  do  as  he  would  be  done  by; 
but  if  this  conduct  of  his  be  fair,  I  know  not 
what  is  otherwise. 

II.  There  is  something  in  this  conduct 
very  impolitic.  After  Mr.  B.  had  demanded 
positive,  express,  and  explicit  proof,  and  had 
run  down  all  proof  by  analogy  and  infer- 
ence, he  should,  if  he  had  had  but  a  little 
policy,  have  kept  that  defence  of  female 
communion  entirely  out  of  sight.  It  was 
not  crafty  in  him,  though  there  is  a  spice  of 
it  in  the  defence  itself,  to  suffer  that  to  go 
abroad,  which,  when  set  against  what  he 
had  said  in  opposition  to  infant  baptism, 
would  run  down  and  ruin  the  whole.  Had 
I  been  he,  and  wished  my  other  arguments 
to  stand,  I  would  have  taken  that  defence, 
and  thrown  it  into  the  fire. 

15 


170  A   SHORT    METHOD 

III.  There  is  something  in  this  conduct 
very  unfortunate.  It  is  a  sad  case  that  a 
book  should  be  so  written,  that  one  part 
shall  rise  up  against  and  ruin  the  other.  Mr. 
B.,  Samson-like,  when  opposing  infant  bap- 
tism, thinks  he  can  carry  gates  and  bars, 
and  every  thing  else  away;  but  when  he  de- 
fends female  communion,  Samson-like  again, 
he  becomes  like  another  man,  that  is,  a  Pse- 
dobaptist;  for  he  reasons,  infers,  and  proves, 
in  the  very  same  way.  In  one  thing,  how- 
ever he  differs,  and  herein  he  is  unfortunate, 
that  instead  of  killing  the  Philistines,  to  wit, 
the  arguments  of  Pasdobaptists,  he  falls  to 
combatting  himself,  and  destroys  his  own. 

What  shall  we  say  to  these  things?  I  re- 
ply, that  with  respect  to  myself  I  say  thus 
much:  that  as  he  is  unfair,  I  would  reprove 
him;  as  he  is  impolitic,  I  would  excuse  him; 
as  he  is  unfortunate,  I  would  pity  him;  and, 
under  all  these  views,  I  would  make  the 
best  apology  for  him  which  the  nature  of  the 
case  will  admit. 

Since  it  is  evident  that  Mr.  B.  demands 
express,  positive,  and  explicit  proof,  with 
respect  to  the  mode  and  subject  of  an  insti- 
tuted rite,  and  as  it  is  equally  evident  that  he 
himself  reasons  on  such  a  rite  by  implication, 
analogy,  and  inference,  the  apology  1  make 
for  him,  and  it  is  the  best  I  can  make,  is  this: 
That  he  understood  explicit  proof,  which  he 
had  so  much  insisted  on,  and  proof  by  in- 
ference, which  he  himself  adopted,  to  mean 
precisely  the  same  thing;  so  that  when  any 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS. 


171 


( 


thing  was  proved  by  inference,  &c.  that  proof 
was  considered  by  hinn  as  express  and  expli- 
cit. This,  I  say,  is  the  best  apology  I  can 
make  for  those  repugnancies,  or,  (if  this  apo- 
logy be  adnnitted,)  seeming  repugnancies,  I 
find  in  his  book.  But,  methinks,  I  hear  some 
Paedobaptist  say,  If  this  apology  he  good,  it 
will  indeed  reconcile  some  of  his  inconsisten- 
cies, but  then  he  will,  at  the  same  time,  stand 
in  need  of  another;  for  if  express  proof  and 
proof  by  inference  be  the  same  thing,  I  should 
be  glad  to  know  why  he  wrote  his  book  at 
all.  To  this  I  can  only  say,  that  I  have  no 
other  apology  to  make;  let  him  apologize  for 
himself  Leaving  Mr.  B.  or  any  one  else,  to 
manage  these  incongruities  the  best  way  he 
can,  I  pass  to  the  third  consequence,  namely, 

That,  according  to  the  principles  and  rea- 
sonings of  the  Baptists,  God  had  no  church  in 
this  world  at  least  for  fifteen  hundred  years. 

The  way  in  which  the  Baptists  are  driven 
into  this  consequence  is  this:  When  it  is 
urged  against  them  that  infants  were  consti- 
tuted church  members,  and  were,  by  the 
Lord  himself,  deemed  fit  subjects  of  a  religi- 
ous rite,  they,  in  order  to  avoid  a  conse- 
quence which  would  bear  hard  on  their  ar- 
guments, endeavour  to  reduce  this  church 
into  a  mere  civil  society;  and  as  they  cannot 
deny  the  membership  of  infants,  they  try  to 
escape  by  destroying  the  church.  Now,  as 
this  is  a  necessary  consequent  of  their  prin- 
ciple, it  will  serve  to  discover  the  error  of 
that  principle  of  which  it  is  a  consequent. 


172  A  SHORT   METHOD 

Mr.  B.,  in  trying  to  effect  his  escape  in 
this  way,  has  used  a  language,  which,  if 
true,  will  prove  that  God  for  many  centuries 
had  no  church  at  all  in  this  world.  This  is 
Mr.  B.'s  expedient,  but  it  is  a  desperate  one. 
In  vol.  ii.  p.  252,  he  calls  the  then  existing 
church,  an  "ecclesiastico-political  constitu- 
tion.'^ By  this  compound  word  he  seems  to 
consider  the  church  under  the  notion  of  an 
amphibious  society;  partly  civil,  and  partly 
religious.  And  he  might  have  likewise  con- 
sidered, that,  as  nothing  in  nature  differs 
more  than  policy  among  men,  and  piety  to- 
wards God,  they  must  be  viewed  in  all  bo- 
dies of  men,  whether  large  or  small,  as  things 
totally  and  at  all  times  distinct.  But  this  Mr. 
B.'s  system  would  not  admit.  Now  in  a 
large  body,  as  the  Jews  for  instance,  all  laws 
pertaining  to  human  society,  as  such,  were 
civil  laws;  and  all  laws,  though  in  the  same 
code  with  the  others,  relating  to  the  worship 
of  God,  were,  properly  speaking,  ecclesiasti- 
cal laws.  So  with  respect  to  men,  when 
they  are  united  in  promoting  order  and  mu- 
tual security,  they  are  to  be  considered  as  a 
political  state;  but  if  some,  or  all  of  these 
profess  piety  towards  God,  and  unite  in  his 
worship,  they  are  to  be  viewed  as  a  visible 
church.  And  though  all  the  inhabitants  of 
Judea  belonged  to  the  state,  it  will  not  fol- 
low that  all  belonged  to  the  visible  church. 
There  were  without  doubt  some  excommu- 
nicated persons,  some  who  voluntarily  with- 
drew, and  there  might  be  many,  who  came 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  173 

into  the  land  of  Israel,  that  did  not  join  them- 
selves to  the  Lord.  There  was,  therefore,  no 
just  reason  why  Mr.  B.  should  confound 
things,  which  in  their  own  nature  are,  and 
ever  must  be,  separate.  Neither  is  it  proba- 
ble he  would  have  done  it,  if  he  had  not 
been  compelled  by  his  opposition  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  infant-membership. 

Though  Mr.  B.,  by  the  phrase  ecclesiastico- 
political  constitution,  has  confounded  the 
church  and  state,  the  one  being  a  kingdom 
of  this  world,  the  other  the  kingdom  of  Christ; 
yet  as  something  of  church  still  makes  its 
appearance,  the  consequence  charged  on  Bap- 
tist principles  may  not  seem  to  be  clearly 
evinced.  'Tis  true,  he  seems  to  grant  two 
parts,  the  political  and  ecclesiastical;  but  if 
we  look  more  narrowly  into  his  book,  the 
ecclesiastical  part  disappears,  and  nothing 
will  remain  but  the  political  only. 

In  vol.  ii.  p.  251,  Mr.  B.  has  these  emphatic 
words:  ^'To  be  an  obedient  subject  of  their 
[the  Jews']  civil  government,  and  a  complete 
member  in  their  church-state,  were  the  same 
thing."  Every  one  knows,  that  a  civil  go- 
vernment, be  it  where  it  may,  is  conversant 
about  present  things,  it  is  a  government 
among  Icives']  citizens  as  such,  and  is  design- 
ed to  regulate  their  worldly  concerns.  An 
obedient  subject  of  such  a  government,  is  one 
who  quietly  and  cheerfully  submits  to  its 
regulations,  and  seeks  the  peace  and  security 
of  that  community  to  which  he  belongs. 
Now  Mr.  B.  assures  us  that  such  was  the 


174 


A    SHOET    METHOD 


nature  of  things  among  the  Jews,  that  "  an 
obedient  subject  of  the  civil  government,  and 
a  complete  member  of  the  church-state,  were 
the  same."  If  this  were  so,  it  must  be  be- 
cause the  civil  government  was  nothing  less 
than  the  church;  and  the  church  was  nothing 
more  than  the  civil  government;  that  is,  they 
were  both  the  same  thing.  It  signifies  nothing 
by  what  name  we  call  this  community,  whe- 
ther a  national  church,  or  an  ecclesiastico- 
political  constitution;  it  means  no  more  at 
last  than  a  civil  government:  For,  as  Mr.  B. 
informs  us,  there  was  nothing  more  required 
in  a  complete  member  of  what  he  calls  the 
church,  than  his  being  an  obedient  subject 
of  the  civil  government.  Now  as  this,  what- 
ever it  was,  could  be  no  church  of  God,  and 
as  it  is  not  supposed  there  was  a  church  of  a 
higher  nature  in  any  other  part ;  it  will  follow, 
that,  according  to  Mr.  B.'s  principles,  God 
had  for  many  centuries  no  such  thing  as  a 
church,  properly  so  called,  in  this  world. 

What  a  church  destroyer  is  this  same  Mr. 
B.!  And  when  we  consider  that  all  this  re- 
sults from  principle,  and  is  carried  on  by  re- 
gular logical  process;  what  a  horrid  principle 
must  that  be  which  leads  a  man  to  destroy 
the  very  church  of  God  !  Though  I  have 
been  a  Baptist  myself  for  several  years,  I 
never  till  lately  discerned  this  shocking  con- 
sequence of  the  Baptist  sentiment.  And  I 
am  much  indebted  to  Mr.  B.  for  an  insight 
into  this,  as  well  as  other  consequences  which 
necessarily  result  from  the  Baptist  scheme. 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  175 

And  I  have  no  doubt  but  his  book,  when 
nicely  examnied,  will  do  more  good  this  way 
than  any  thing  which  has  hitherto  been  writ- 
ten on  the  subject. 

As  Mr.  B.  to  preserve  his  system,  has  laid 
violent  hands  on  the  ancient  church  of  God; 
we  cannot  suppose  that  that  which  was  con- 
nected with  it  could  possib4y  escape.  He 
that  could  reduce  the  church  into  a  civil  go- 
vernment, will  not  think  it  much  to  manu- 
facture a  religious  institute  into  a  political 
rite.  What  was  circumcision  ?  According 
to  Mr.  B.  "  it  was  a  sign  of  carnal  descent, 
a  mark  of  national  distinction,  and  a  token 
of  interest  in  temporal  blessings."  Here  in- 
deed is  a  good  match;  a  civil  institute,  and  a 
civil  government!  Now,  though  there  is  not 
a  word  of  truth  in  all  this;  yet  this  honour 
Mr.  B.  shall  have,  and  it  is  an  honour  I  can- 
not always  give  him,  that  in  this  he  is  actu- 
ally consistent  with  himself:  He  has  secular- 
ized the  church  and  the  institute  together. 

I  will  not  now  contend  with  Mr.  B.  whe- 
ther he  has  given  a  true  account  of  the  an- 
cient church,  and  its  members;  it  is  sufficient 
for  my  present  purpose  to  take  notice  of  what 
he  has  affirmed.  Yet  I  could  wish,  should 
he  write  again  upon  the  subject  (as  I  hope  he 
will,)  to  see  a  fuller  account  of  that  church, 
the  complete  members  of  which  were  only 
obedient  subjects  of  the  civil  government,  I 
have  never,  in  my  small  reading,  met  with  a 
definition  of  a  church  like  this;  it  is  enough 
for  me  now  that  Mr.  B.  has.  My  business  is 


176  A    SHORT    METHOD 

not  to  dispute,  but  to  take  it  upon  his  word, 
I  only  say,  that  if  such  a  church  did  ever  ex- 
ist, whatever  it  was,  it  could  be  no  church 
of  God.  And  as  there  was  no  better  church, 
i.  e.  a  civil  government,  in  any  other  part; 
there  was  not,  on  Mr.  B.'s  principles,  for 
many  centuries,  a  church  of  God,  properly 
so  called,  in  alhthe  world. 

"An  obedient  subject  of  their  civil  govern- 
ment, and  a  complete  member  of  their  church 
state,  were  the  same  thing."  The  same  thing! 
If,  then,  the  complete  member  was  no  more 
than  an  obedient  subject;  the  church  state 
could  be  no  more  than  a  civil  government: 
For,  according  to  Mr.  B.  they  were  precisely 
the  same  thing.  What  might  be  the  reason 
of  all  this?  Mr.  B.  shall  inform  us  himself; 
it  was, "  Because  by  treating  Jehovah  as  their 
political  sovereign,  they  avowed  him  as  the 
true  God."  As  it  is  not  my  business  in  this 
place  to  oppose  any  thing  Mr.  B.  says,  I  shall 
only  take  the  liberty  to  explain.  What  is  a 
political  sovereign?  He  is  one  who  reigns 
over  others  in  civil  things;  that  is,  he  governs 
and  regulates  the  affairs  of  this  present  world. 
This  is  the  reason  then,  that  an  obedient  sub- 
ject of  civil  government,  and  a  complete 
church  member,  were  the  same  thing;  because 
all  that  God  had  to  do  with  them  was,  as  a 
political  sovereign,  to  regulate  the  affairs  of 
the  present  world. 

But  where  would  have  been  the  harm  of 
supposing  the  ever-blessed  Jehovah  to  have 
been  more,  infinitely  more,  than  a  political 


WITH     THE    BAPTISTS.  177 

sovereign?  And  that  he  gave  his  word  and 
ordinances  to  lead  to  the  faith  of  Christ  ? 
That  he  sent  his  prophets  to  bear  witness, 
that  through  his  name  whosoever  beheved 
in  him  should  receive  remission  of  sins?  That 
he  formed  a  people  for  himself,  to  show  forth 
his  praise?  Where,  I  say,  would  have  been 
the  harm  of  supposing  this?  None  at  all,  in 
reality;  the  harm  would  only  have  been  to 
Mr.  B.'s  system.  For  had  Jehovah  been  a 
religious  sovereign,  he  would  have  had  a 
religious  community,  and  that  community 
would  have  been  a  religious  church,  i.  e.  a 
church  professing  godliness;  and  then,  an 
obedient  subject  of  civil  government  would 
not  have  been  a  complete  member;  and  then, 
their  institute  would  have  been  a  religious 
institute;  and  then — what  then?  And  then 
Mr.  B.'s  system  would  have  gone  to  ruin. 
But  he  wisely  foreseeing  this,  takes  measures 
to  secularize  the  whole.  He  begins  at  the 
head,  and  goes  down  to  the  institute.  Jeho- 
vah must  be  a  political  sovereign,  that  the 
church  may  be  political;  the  church  must  be 
political,  that  the  membership  may  be  so  too; 
the  membership  must  be  political,  that  the 
institute  may  be  political  also.  So  all  was 
political ;  a  political  sovereign,  a  political 
church,  a  political  member,  and  a  political 
institute.  And  now  Mr.  B.  has  gained  his 
point;  for  sure  enough,  there  can  be  no  analo- 
gy between  a  church  and  no  church;  and 
consequently  no  argument  can  be  drawn  in 
favour  of  infant  membership  from  a  church 
16 


178  A    SHORT   METHOD 

which  never  was,  to  a  church  that  now  exists. 
Yes,  he  has  gained  his  point,  he  has  run  down 
infant  baptism  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  has 
eradicated  the  church  of  God.  Nay,  he  was 
under  a  necessity  of  eradicating  the  church 
of  God,  that  infant  baptism  might  be  run 
down.  This  has  given  me  a  notion  of  infant 
baptism  far  different  from  what  I  ever  had. 
And,  if  I  could  say,  that  any  one  thing  has 
satisfied  my  mind  respecting  it  more  than  an- 
other, it  has  been  this:  I  saw  that  infant  bap- 
tism could  by  no  means  be  overthrown,  with- 
out overthrowing  the  church  of  God.  And 
for  this  conviction  I  am  indebted  to  that  very 
book,  on  which  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to 
animadvert.  Nothing,  therefore,  in  nature 
can  be  plainer  than  ihis  consequence,  that 
the  system  of  Mr.  B.  has  subverted  the  church 
of  God. 

These  are  the  three  consequences  which 
rise  out  of  the  baptist  system,  and  which,  I 
have  said,  will  operate  to  ruin  that  system 
out  of  which  they  arise:  Namely, 

1.  That,  according  to  the  principles  and 
reasonings  of  the  Baptists,  a  woman,  how- 
ever qualified,  can  have  no  right  to  the  Lord's 
table. 

2.  That  the  Baptists,  in  opposing  infant 
baptism,  and  defending  female  communion, 
do  vary  their  mode  of  reasoning,  contradict 
themselves,  and  prevaricate  most  wretchedly. 

3.  That,  according  to  their  principles  and 
reasoning,  God  had  no  church  in  this  world 
for  many  centuries. 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  179 

I  shall  now  close  the  Appendix  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  reader ;  and  this  I  mean  to  do  in 
three  questions. 

1.  Are  these  consequences  real?  To  an- 
swer this  question  I  need  only  appeal  to  the 
Appendix  itself.  There  the  reader  may  sat- 
isfy himself  respecting  their  reaUty.  As  to 
the  first,  it  is  there  evident,  that  there  is  no 
explicit  command  for  female  communion ; 
and,  according  to  the  Baptist  system,  they 
are  not  to  commune  without:  The  conse- 
quence is,  that  they  have  no  right  to  com- 
mune at  all.  With  regard  to  the  second,  I 
have  placed  Mr.  B.'s  defence  of  female  com- 
munion against  his  opposition  to  infant  bap- 
tism; and  what  repugnancy,  prevarication, 
and  self-contradiction,  are  discoverable  in 
these  two,  I  have  presented  to  the  reader. 
The  third  speaks  openly  for  itself,  that  the 
best  church  in  the  world  for  many  centuries, 
was  nothing  else  but  a  civil  government. 

2.  Do  these  consequences  rise  out  of  the 
Baptists'  system?  For  an  answer  to  this  I 
might  refer  the  reader  to  the  former  part  of 
the  Appendix;  where  he  may  see  in  what 
way  they  actually  do  arise  out  of  their  sys- 
tem. Their  system  destroys  the  right  of  fe- 
males to  the  Lord's  supper,  by  demanding 
explicit  proof  for  infant  baptism ;  because 
there  is  no  such  proof  for  female  communion. 
Their  attempt  to  prove  the  right  of  females 
to  commune, involves  them  in  the  most  mean 
prevarication  and  self-contradiction.  And  in 
overthrowing  the  argument  for  infant  bap- 


180  A    SHORT    METHOD 

tism  taken  from  the  membership  of  infants 
in  God's  ancient  church,  they  overthrow  the 
very  church  itself.  In  this  way,  these  horrid 
consequences  owe  their  birth  to  that  bad  sys- 
tem. 

3.  Are  such  consequences  as  these  which 
rise  out  of  the  Baptist  system,  sufficient  to  ruin 
that  system  out  of  which  they  rise?  To  this 
I  answer,  that  if  any  consequences  are  suffi- 
cient to  ruin  a  system,  these  are  they.  It  is 
a  rule  in  reasoning,  that  that  argument  which 
proves  too  much  destroys  itself.  The  same 
is  also  true  of  a  system ;  the  system  that 
proves  too  much  must  follow  the  fate  of  its 
kindred  argument,  and  prove  its  own  destruc- 
tion. This  system,  it  is  true,  proves  against 
infant  baptism ;  but  there  it  does  not  stop,  it 
carries  its  force  still  further,  it  proves  against 
female  communion,  and  against  the  existence 
of  God's  church;  and  to  complete  the  whole, 
it  proves  against  the  author  who  patronizes  it. 
So  that  if  infant  baptism  fall,  they  all  fall  to- 
gether; female  communion  falls,  the  church  of 
God  falls,  the  author  himself,  Mr.  B.,  falls,  and 
all  by  the  same  fatal  system.  For  if  this  sys- 
tem makes  infant  baptism  a  nullity,  it  makes 
female  communion  a  nullity  too ;  and  turns 
the  church  itself  into  a  civil  government,  and 
turns  the  patron  of  it  into  a  self-contradictor. 
This,  if  any  thing  can  be,  is  proving  too  much; 
and,  therefore,  that  system  which  is  produc- 
tive of  such  consequences,  must  itself  be  de- 
stroyed by  the  consequences  it  produces. 
And  I  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  any  reader 


WITH    THE    BAPTISTS.  181 

whether  these  consequences  have  not  been 
proved,  and  whether  they  are  not  sufficient 
to  destroy  any  system. 

I  call  this  a  short  method  with  the  Bap- 
tists, because,  whatever  course  they  may 
take,  it  will  serve  to  ruin  their  scheme.  If, 
on  the  one  hand,  these  consequences  are  suf- 
fered to  remain  as  they  do  now  in  Mr.  B.'s 
book,  their  scheme  will  be  ruined  this  way. 
For  that  system  can  have  no  pretension  at 
all  to  truth,  which  in  its  consequences  mili- 
tates against  female  communion,  and  the 
very  existence  of  the  church  of  God;  and 
moreover  exhibits  the  patron  of  it  under  the 
shape  of  a  shifter,  prevaricator,  and  self  con- 
tradictor. But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
alter  their  mode  of  defence  so  as  to  avoid 
these  consequences,  their  scheme  will  be 
ruined  that  way;  for  then,  they  will  lose 
those  very  arguments  by  which  they  endea- 
vour to  support  it.  So  that  let  a  Baptist, 
Mr.  B.  for  instance,  take  which  way  he  will, 
his  scheme  will  either  be  overwhelmed  with 
its  own  consequences,  or  it  will  fall  for  want 
of  arguments. 

Thus  much  I  say  at  present  concerning  ihe 
Appendix;  and  shall  now  commit  it  into  the 
hands  of  God,  the  eternal  patron  of  truth,  and 
to  every  reader's  judgment  and  conscience  in 
his  sight. 


182  OF   THE   MODE 

A  CASE 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   CONSIDERATION    OF   BAPTISTS. 

Before  I  enter  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism,  I 
would  take  the  liberty  of  proposing  to  my 
Baptist  friends  a  plain  case;  not  so  much  a 
case  of  conscience  as  a  case  of  criticism. 
That  on  which  this  case  is  founded  is  as  fol- 
lows: It  is  well  known  that  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation  there  are  two  instituted  or- 
dinances; the  one  in  Scripture  is  expressed 
by  the  term  deipnon,  a  supper,  the  other  by 
baptisma,  baptism.  The  proper  and  obvi- 
ous meaning  of  delpnon  is  a  feast  or  a  com- 
mon meal,  Mark  vi.  21;  John  xxi.  22;  the 
proper  meaning  of  baptisma  is  said  to  be 
the  immersion  of  the  whole  body.  The  case 
then  is  this: 

If,  because  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term 
baptisma^  baptism,  is  the  immersion  of  the 
whole  body,  a  person,  who  is  not  immersed, 
cannot  be  said  to  have  been  baptized,  since 
nothing  short  of  immersion  amounts  to  the 
full  import  of  the  word  baptism.  If  this  be 
true,  I  should  be  glad  to  know  that  as  deip' 
non,  a  supper,  properly  means  a  feast  or 
common  meal,  whetlier  a  person  who,  in  the 
use  of  that  ordinance,  takes  only  a  piece  of 
bread  of  half  aii  inch  square,  and  drinks  a 
tablespoonfull  of  wine,  which  is  neither  a 
feast  nor  a  common  meal,  and  so  does  not 
come  up  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word, 


OF   BAPTISM.  183 

can  be  said   to  have    received   the   Lord's 
Supper? 

Mr.  Booth,  I  presume,  saw  this  in  Mr. 
Piries'  book,  but  has  not  taken  any  notice  of 
it;  I  therefore  request  some  Baptist  friend  to 
turn  his  attention  to  it. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

It  appears  to  me,  from  the  following  circum- 
stance, that  the  Baptists  are  not  so  tenacious 
of  the  mode  as  of  the  subject  of  baptism.  I 
had  been  convinced  more  than  four  years 
ago,  in  reading  Dr.  Williams'  book,  that  im- 
mersion was  not  essential  to  baptism;  and 
though  I  preached  since  that  period  several 
baptizing  sermons  without  saying  a  word 
about  the  mode,  I  never  heard  of  any  of  our 
Baptist  friends  that  ever  observed  that  omis- 
sion; whereas,  on  the  contrary,  had  I  insisted 
on  the  mode,  and  omitted  the  subject,  I  have 
not  a  doubt  but  they  would  have  noticed  it 
in  the  first  sermon.  And  I  remember  some 
years  back  to  have  heard  a  Baptist  minister 
say,  that  the  mode  of  baptism,  by  immersion 
only,  did  not  appear  equally  plain  as  the  sub- 
ject. Indeed  I  am  persuaded  that  if  it  can 
be  made  plain  to  the  Baptists  that  it  is  wrong 
to  reject  an  infant,  they  will  soon  give  up  the 
idea  of  immersion  only;  and  it  is  for  this  rea- 
son that  I  have  been  the  more  diffuse  on  the 
subject,  and  shall  now  be  short  on  the  mode. 


184  OF   THE    MODE 

All  our  knowledge  of  the  manner  of  bap- 
tizing must,  at  this  distance  of  time  from  the 
first  institution,  be  collected  from  the  word 
"  baptize,"  the  circumstances  of  baptism,  and 
the  allusions  of  Scripture  to  that  ordinance. 
These  three  I  will  endeavour  to  examine  im- 
partially, confining  myself  to  Scripture,  and 
the  word  made  use  of  in  the  institute.  The 
question,  on  which  this  examination  is  to 
proceed,  is  this:  Is  the  immersion  essential  to 
baptism?  or,  in  other  words,  is  there  no  bap- 
tism but  what  is  by  immersion  ?  I  shall  begin 
the  inquiry  with  that  precise  term  which  the 
Scriptures  always  use  when  this  ordinance 
is  spoken  of,  namely  baptizo,  and  examine 
those  places  in  which  it  occurs  either  as  a 
noun  or  a  verb,  where  the  ordinance  is  not 
intended. 

There  is  a  word  commonly  introduced  into 
this  debate,  viz.  bapto,  though  it  is  never 
used  in  Scripture,  respecting  this  ordinance; 
and  this  being  the  fact,  I  see  no  great  pro- 
priety in  bringing  it  into  the  debate  at  all; 
for  let  it  mean  what  it  may,  it  can  signify 
nothing  to  the  question  in  hand  unless  it  had 
been  used  by  the  inspired  writers  to  express 
this  ordinance.  I  do  not,  however,  shun  this 
term  because  it  would  be  unfavourable  to 
my  sentiment,  but  because  I  judge  it  best  to 
examine  that  word,  and  that  only,  which  the 
Holy  Ghost,  when  speaking  of  this  ordinance, 
has  thought  proper  to  adopt. 

Nevertheless,  that  I  may  not  omit  it  alto- 
gether, I  would  say  thus  much  of  the  term 


OF     BAPTISM.  185 

bap  to,  that  it  is  a  term  of  such  latitude,  that 
he  who  shall  attempt  to  prove,  from  its  use 
in  various  authors,  an  absolute  and  total  im- 
mersion, will  find  he  has  undertaken  that 
which  he  can  never  fairly  perform.  Of  the 
truth  of  this  assertion  I  would  give  the  plaiPx 
reader  a  taste  in  the  following  instances. 
The  term  bapto  then  is  used  to  express, 

1.  The  throwing  of  a  person  into  the  mire. 
Job  ix.  31.  "Thou  shalt  plunge,  (baptize) 
or  make  me  foul  in  the  mire." 

2.  A  partial  dipping.  Matt.  xxvi.  23.  "  He 
that  dippeth  (baptizeth)  his  hand  with  me  in 
the  dish." 

3.  A  stained  garment.  Rev.  xix.  13.  "A 
vesturedipped  (baptized) stained  with  blood." 

4.  A  human  body  wet  with  the  dew.  Dan. 
iv.  33.  "  His  body  was  wet  (baptized)  by 
or  from  the  dew  of  heaven." 

5.  The  colouring  a  lake  with  the  blood  of 
a  frog.  Homer,  "  The  lake  was  baptized, 
coloured,  or  stained  with  blood." 

6.  The  smearing  of  the  face  with  colours 
or  washes.  Aristophanes,  "He  baptized, 
smeared  [his  face]  with  tawney  washes;" 
speaking  of  Magnes,the  comedian,  who  used 
to  colour  his  face  instead  of  using  a  mask. 

7.  The  staining  of  the  hand  by  pressing  a 
substance;  Aristotle,  "  Being  pressed,  it  bap- 
tizes, stains  the  hand." 

So  various  is  the  use  of  the  term  bapto, 
that  we  can  only  view  it  as  meaning  to  wet 
or  stain,  and  that  by  whatever  mode  the  na- 
ture of  the  thing  to  be  wetted  or  stained  may 


186 


OF    THE    MODE 


require.  And  I  can  truly  say  I  have  often 
been  heartily  sick  and  sorry  when  1  have 
observed  persons  of  eminence  for  learning, 
especially  Dr.  Gale,  labouring,  in  opposition 
to  the  very  instances  which  they  themselves 
had  produced,  to  prove  that  this  term  in- 
tended immersion,  total  immersion,  and  no- 
thing else.  But  as  this  word  is  never  used 
with  respect  to  the  ordinance  in  question, 
and  can  therefore  give  us  no  information 
concerning  the  mode  of  it,  I  shall  immedi- 
ately dismiss  it  without  further  notice. 

I  come  now  to  consider  the  term  baptizo, 
which  is  the  only  term  made  use  of  to  ex- 
press this  ordinance,  and  this  I  shall  do  by 
setting  down  those  places  where  it  is  used  as 
a  verb  or  a  noun  when  the  ordinance  is  not 
intended.  These  places  are  as  follow:  Heb. 
ix.   10.  "Which  stood  in  meats  and  drinks 

and    divers    washings divers    baptisms." 

Mark  vii.  4.  "  And  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  wash  (except  they 
baptize)  they  eat  not.  And  many  other 
things  there  be  which  they  have  received  to 
hold,  as  the  washing,  (baptisms)  of  cups  and 
pots,  brazen  vessels  and  of  tables."  Luke  xi. 
38.  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed,  (bap- 
tized) before  dinner."  The  word  in  these 
instances,  is  used, 

1.  For  those  various  ablutions  among  the 
Jews,  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  &c. 

2.  For  a  custom  among  the  Pharisees  of 
washing  before  meals. 


OF    BAPTISM. 


187 


3.  For  a  superstitions  washing  of  honse- 
hold  fnrnitnre,  cnps,  pots,  &c. 

With  these  instances  in  view,  I  would  pro- 
pose to  the  reader  two  questions: 

I.  Is  the  word  baptize  used  in  these  in- 
stances to  express  immersion  only?  The 
reader  may  observe  that  the  very  first  in- 
stance proves  it  is  not.  The  Apostle  plainly 
expresses  the  Jewish  ablutions  by  the  term 
"  baptisms;"  and  any  man,  by  looking  into 
his  Bible,  and  reading  the  account  of  the 
Jewish  service,  may  see  what  kind  of  bap- 
tisms these  were.  Mr.  Booth  himself,  in  his 
answer  to  Dr.  Williams,  p.  347,  will  grant 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  apostle 
uses  the  term  baptisms  in  this  place  to  denote 
pouring  and  sprinkling  as  well  as  immersion; 
nor  does  he,  in  what  he  has  advanced  on  the 
subject,  deny  this  to  have  been  the  fact;  and 
indeed  a  man  must  be  very  defective  in  point 
of  modesty  who  will  even  attempt  to  deny 
this.  Well  then,  if  the  word  baptism  is  not 
used  in  these  instances,  as  it  is  certain  it  is 
not,  to  express  immersion  only,  I  ask,  in  the 
next  place — Is  it  used  to  express  any  im- 
mersion at  all?  I  will  apply  this  question  to 
each  of  the  instances: 

1.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  the  Jewish  ser- 
vice, and  says  it  stood  in  "divers  baptisms." 
I  ask  whether  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
was  any  part  of  that  service?  It  is  clear 
that  the  Apostle,  by  the  word  "  baptisms," 
intended  sprinkling  and  pouring;  but  I  be- 
lieve it  is  not  clear  from  any  part  of  the 


188  OF    THE     MODE 

Jewish  service,  that  any  one  was  ordered  to 
immerse  himself,  or  to  be  immersed  by  an- 
other. If  this,  however,  can  be  proved,  it 
must  then  be  granted  that  the  Apostle  uses 
the  word  ''  baptisms"  to  denote  immersion  as 
well  as  pouring  and  sprinkling;  but  if  this 
cannot  be  proved,  it  will  then  be  evident 
that  no  immersion  at  all  is  intended  by  the 
word  baptisms. 

2.  I  will  apply  the  question  to  the  second 
case — the  baptizing  before  meals.  It  is  said, 
"  that  when  they  come  from  market,  except 
they  baptize  they  eat  not;"  and  the  '^  Phari- 
see marvelled  that  our  Lord  did  not  baptize 
(that  is,  himself)  before  dinner."  I  ask.  Is 
there  any  immersion  at  all  here  ?  The  Phari- 
see marvelled  that  our  Lord  did  not  baptize 
himself  before  dinner — did  he  marvel  that  he 
did  not  immerse  himself.^  The  Pharisees, 
when  they  come  from  market,  except  they 
baptize  [themselves]  they  eat  not — did  they 
too  immerse  themselves  every  time  they 
came  from  a  market?  I  know  it  is  not  an 
impossible  case;  but  I  am  asking  whether  it 
is  at  all  a  probable  thing?  And  if  it  be  not, 
then  it  is  improbable  that  the  word  baptize  in 
these  places  should  intend  any  immersion  at 
all.  Perhaps  some  one  will  say  that  nothing 
more  is  intended  than  the  washing  of  hands, 
as  this  is  agreeable  to  the  tradition  of  the 
elders  mentioned  in  Matt.  xv.  2.;  and  it  is 
well  known  that  we  dip  our  hands  in  order 
to  wash  them.  Supposing  this  to  be  the  fact, 
I  reply,  that  if  we  dip  our  hands  in  order  to 


OF    BAPTISM.  189 

baptize  [wash]  them,  then  it  is  certain,  that 
dipping  and  baptizing  [washing]  are  differ- 
ent things; — that  baptizing  [washing]  is  the 
end,  and  dipping  a  mean  to  that  end; — that 
we  only  dip  so  much  of  our  hands  as  may 
be  necessary  to  baptize  [wash]  them; — and 
that  our  dipping  the  hands  in  order  to  bap- 
tize them  depends  entirely  on  circumstances: 
e.  g.  If  I  baptize  [wash]  my  hands  in  a  ba- 
son, I  dip  so  much  of  them  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  baptize  them;  but  if  I  baptize  [wash] 
them  at  a  spout,  I  do  not  dip  them  at  all — I 
only  receive  the  water  as  it  falls^  and  bap- 
tize [wash]  them  without  dipping.  And  it 
signifies  nothing  to  us  how  they  baptized 
[washed]  their  hands,  whether  in  a  bason  or 
at  a  spout;  for  the  word  ^'  baptize"  does 
not  express  the  manner  of  doing,  whether  by 
immersion  or  affusion,  but  only  the  thing 
done,  namely,  '"washing." 

3.  I  now  carry  the  question  to  the  third 
case — the  superstitious  baptizing  [washing] 
of  household  furniture,  cups,  pots,  brazen 
vessels,  and  tables.  Cups;  these,  it  appears 
from  the  name,  were  drinking  vessels;  pots; 
those  vessels  out  of  which  wine  or  water 
was  poured,  pitchers  or  flagons.  Brazen 
vessels,  were,  it  is  probable,  for  culinary 
uses,  for  boiling.  Tables,  some  take  this 
word  as  it  is  here  rendered,  others  think  it 
means  those  seats  or  benches  on  which  they 
sat  at  meals:  and  these  are  sometimes  called 
"  lectV^  beds,  perhaps  from  the  leaning  pos- 
ture then  in  use.     The  Jews,  our  Lord  ob- 


190  OF    THE    MODE 

serves,  held  and  practised  the  baptizhig  of 
these;  now  we  ask,  Does  the  word  baptize 
in  this  place  express  any  immersion? 

These  things,  it  is  plain,  were  baptized 
[washed;]  but  how  they  were  baptized,  no 
creature  living  can  determine.  One  thing, 
however,  may  be  remarked,  which  is,  that 
all  these  articles  might  very  conveniently  be 
baptized  [washed]  by  pouring,  &c.  while,  on 
the  contrary,  it  would  have  been  very  in- 
convenient, and  even  improper,  to  baptize 
[wash]  others,  viz.  the  brazen  vessels  and 
tables,  by  immersion.  It  is,  I  believe,  a 
general  opinion  that  some  of  these  things 
were  baptized  by  dipping — as  the  cups  and 
pots,  and  that  others  were  baptized  [washed] 
by  pouring,  sprinkling,  &c.  And  hence  many 
learned  men  have  considered  the  word  bap- 
tize as  expressing  all  these  modes.  In  this, 
however,  they  appear  to  me  to  have  been 
mistaken;  for  the  word  baptize,  [wash] 
though  it  has  been  applied  to  all  modes  of 
washing,  is  not  properly  expressive  of  any 
mode,  but  intends  only  the  washing  itself, 
which  may  be  done  by  either. 

The  conclusion,  therefore,  from  these  in- 
stances, is  this:  It  is  evident  that  the  word 
baptize  does  not  intend  immersion  only;  the 
various  sprinklings,  pourings,  &c.  among  the 
Jews  are  plainly  called  "baptism."  Nay, 
further,  it  is  not  certain  that  there  was  any 
immersion  at  all  in  either  of  the  baptisms 
[washings]  before  us;  and  it  is  very  certain 
that  whether  these  persons  and  things  were 


OF   BAPTISM.  191 

baptized  by  immersion,  aspersion,  or  affu- 
sion, the  word  baptize  does  not  express 
either  of  the  modes  by  which  any  person 
or  thing  was  washed,  but  only  the  washing 
itself.  And  though  there  has  been  much 
dispute  about  the  word  "baptize,'^  some 
affirming  it  to  mean  immersion,  only,  others 
aspersion  and  affusion  as  well  as  immersion, 
yet,  properly  speaking,  it  means  neither  of 
them.  It  has  indeed  been  used  for  all  the 
modes  of  washing — sprinkling,  pouring,  and 
immersing;  whereas  it  does  not  express  the 
one  nor  the  other,  but  washing  only;  and 
this  may  be  done  in  either  of  the  modes; 
and,  therefore,  when  we  read  of  any  person 
or  thing  being  baptized,  we  cannot  conclude 
from  the  word  itself  whether  it  was  done  by 
affusion,  aspersion,  or  immersion. 

As  the  word  "  baptize,"  which  means  sim- 
ply to  wash,  does  not  determine  the  mode  in 
which  persons  should  receive  baptism,  I  will 
attend  in  the  next  place,  to  the  circumstances 
of  that  ordinance.  Those  I  mean  to  consider 
are,  first.  The  places  where  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered, and,  secondly.  The  preparations 
for  baptism. 

1.  The  places  chosen  for  this  ordinance 
were,  among  others,  the  river  Jordan,  and 
Enon  near  Salim,  where,  it  is  said,  there 
were  many  waters.  This  is  a  circumstance 
that  appears  to  weigh  on  the  side  of  immer- 
sion; and  if  we  give  it  that  weight  in  the 
scale  of  reason,  for  which  the  Baptists  con- 
tend, it  will  amount  to  this — it  is  a  presump- 


192 


OF  THE  MODE 


tive,  but  not  a  certain,  proof  of  immersion. 
That  it  is  a  presumptive  proof  appears  by 
this — that  here  was,  as  far  as  we  know,  a 
fair  opportunity  for  immersion;  that  it  is  no 
more  than  a  presumptive  proof  is  evident 
from  hence — that  all  this  might  be,  and  yet 
no  immersion.  If  we  say  they  baptized  in 
or  at  a  river,  therefore  they  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, this  would  be  a  good  consequence 
if  it  were  impossible  to  baptize  at  or  in  a 
river  in  any  other  way;  but  since  a  person 
can  baptize  in  or  at  a  river  by  affusion  as 
well  as  immersion,  we  can  only  draw  a  con- 
clusion in  favour  of  immersion  by  an  act  of 
the  fancy.  However,  let  it  be  a  proof  of  the 
presumptive  kind,  and  it  cannot  possibly  be 
any  thing  more. 

Now,  as  it  is  the  nature  of  presumptive 
proof  to  admit  of  increase  or  diminution, 
this,  like  all  proof  of  the  same  kind,  may  be 
increased  or  diminished.  That,  on  the  one 
hand,  which  serves  to  increase  the  presump- 
tion on  the  side  of  immersion,  is  this:  That 
of  all  who  administer  baptism,  there  are 
none  at  this  time  (as  far  as  I  know)  that 
baptize  in  or  at  a  river,  but  such  as  use  im- 
mersion. It  may  indeed  be  said  that  all  this 
may  be  accounted  for.  The  case  of  John 
differed  very  much  from  our's;  he  had  vast 
congregations  and  many  to  baptize,  and  no 
house  fit  to  contain  them:  so  that  his  choos- 
ing a  river,  though  he  had  baptized  by  affu- 
sion, would,  in  his  case,  have  been,  on  the 
whole,  the  wisest  plan.     And  although  per- 


OF   BAPTISM.  193 

sons  who  baptize  by  affusion,  do  not  now  go 
to  a  river,  yet  were  they  circumstanced,  with 
respect  to  their  congregations  and  acccom- 
niodations,  as  John  was,  they  would,  in  their 
choice  of  place,  act  in  the  same  manner  he 
did.  Something  hke  this,  I  suppose,  might 
be  said,  but  I  was  willing  to  give  the  pre- 
sumption all  its  force. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  presumption  may 
be  diminished  by  observing,  first,  that  there 
were  many  baptizings  which  do  not  appear 
to  have  taken  place  at  or  in  any  river — as 
that  of  Paul,  of  the  jailer,  of  Cornelius,  of 
those  of  Samaria,  and  of  the  three  tiiousand. 
And,  secondly,  there  is  another  thing:  It  can- 
not be  proved  with  certainty  that  even  those 
who  were  baptized  in  or  at  Jordan,  Enon, 
&c.  were — I  will  not  say  totally  immersed, 
but  that  they  were  so  much  as  in  the  water 
at  all.  Whoever  is  acquainted  with  the  in- 
determinate sense  of  the  prepositions  en,eis* 
ek,  and  apo,  on  which  this  proof  must  depend, 
will  be  very  sensible  of  this.  These  occur 
in  the  following  Scriptures;  Matt.  iii.  6. 
^'  They  were  baptized  of  him,  en  to  lorda- 
nee,  in  Jordan;'^ — en  means  not  only  "  in," 
but  ^'nigh,  near,  at,  by,"  &c.  Acts  viii.  38. 
"  They  went  down  both,  eis  to  udor,  into  the 
water;"  but  eis,  besides  "into,"  often  means 

*  John  XX,  4,  5,  came  first  to  [eis]  the  sepulchre — Yet 
went  he  not  in.  From  which  it  is  evident  that  eis  signi- 
fies  to  as  well  as  into;  and  therefore  to  pretend  to  deter- 
mine the  mode  of  baptism  from  the  signification  of  that 
word  is  trifling. 

17 


194  OF    THE    MODE 

^'  towards,  near,"  &c.  Matt.  iii.  16.  "And 
Jesus  when  he  was  baptized, went  up  straight- 
way, apo  tou  udatos,  out  of  the  water." 
Acts  viii.  39.  "And  when  they  were  come 
up,  ek  tou  udatos,  out  of  the  water;" — apo 
and  ek  very  often  signify  "  from."  So  that 
whereas  it  is  read  in  our  translation — in 
Jordan,  into  the  water,  out  of  the  water,  it 
will  read  as  well  in  the  Greek — at  Jordan, 
to  the  water,  from  the  water.  This  is  a  truth 
beyond  all  dispute,  and  well  known  to  every 
one  who  is  at  all  conversant  with  tlie  Greek. 
And  whoever  duly  considers  this  will  easily 
be  persuaded  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to 
prove  that  any  one,  who  is  said  in  Scripture 
to  have  been  baptized,  was  so  much  as  in  the 
water  at  all,  or  that  he  even  wet  the  sole  of 
his  foot. 

2.  The  other  circumstance  relates  to  a  pre- 
paration for  the  ordinance.  Every  one  who 
has  been  accustomed  to  baptize  by  immer- 
sion, must  certainly  know,  that  it  is  neces- 
sary, with  respect  to  decency  and  safety,  to 
change  the  dresses,  and  to  have  separate 
apartments  for  men  and  women.  This  is 
evidently  necessary,  whether  we  baptize  in 
a  river,  or  in  a  baptistry.  Now  it  is  certain, 
that  although  we  read  of  many  baptizings, 
there  is  not  the  least  intimation  given,  either 
of  changing  the  dress,  or  of  any  suitable  ac- 
commodation for  the  different  sexes.  This, 
though  a  circumstance  that  weighs  against 
immersion,!  consider  as  being, like  the  other, 
only  of  the  presumptive  kind.  For,  no  doubt, 


OF     BAPTISM.  195 

it  would  be  very  illogical  to  say,  we  read  of 
no  change  of  dress,  or  separate  apartments 
for  baptizing,  therefore  there  was  no  immer- 
sion. 

This  presumption,  like  the  other,  may  be 
made  stronger  or  weaker.  It  may  be  made 
weaker  in  this  way;  that  though  we  read  of 
no  changing  of  garments,  or  any  separate 
apartments,  yet  there  might  have  been  both; 
as  many  things  might  have  been  done  of 
which  the  Scriptures  take  no  notice.  On  the 
other  side,  the  presumption  may  be  made 
stronger,  by  observing  that  there  are  other 
cases  in  which  mention  is  made  of  garments, 
where  there  could  be  no  more  necessity  of 
mentioning  them,  than  in  the  case  of  baptism; 
supposing  baptism  to  have  been  performed 
by  immersion.  To  instance  only  in  two 
cases;  when  our  Lord  washed  his  disciples' 
feet,  it  is  said,  he  laid  aside  his  garments. 
And  Luke,  speaking  of  those  who  stoned 
Stephen,  says,  '^  they  laid  down  their  clothes 
at  a  young  man's  feet,  whose  name  was 
Saul."  Now  if  the  Scriptures  take  notice 
of  the  putting  off  of  garments  for  the  purpose 
of  washing  feet,  and  stoning  a  man  to  death; 
how  comes  it  to  pass,  that  as  thousands,  upon 
supposition  they  were  baptized  by  immersion, 
must  entirely  have  changed  their  garments, 
or  have  done  worse,  the  Scriptures  should 
not  drop  a  single  hint  about  it?  Both  these 
presumptions  may  be  tossed  and  turned,  and 
strengthened   and   weakened,  just  as  fancy 


196  OF    THE    MODE 

may  dictate;  whereas,  when  all  is  said  and 
done,  they  are  no  more  than  presumptions 
still.  And  when  we  have  only  presumption 
in  the  premises,  we  can  have  nothing  more 
1^     than  presumption  in  the  conclusion. 

To  conclude  this  part  respecting  the  cir- 
cumstances of  baptism,  I  will  only  say,  we 
have  here  a  goodly  combat;  presumption 
contending  with  presumption.  One  presump- 
tion says,  that  as  they  sometimes  made  use 
of  a  river  for  baptizing,  it  is  likely  they  bap- 
tized by  immersion.  The  other  presumption 
answers,  that  since  it  does  not  appear,  that 
the  sexes  were  decently  accommodated  for 
immersion,  or  that  there  was  any  changing 
of  garments,  it  is  therefore  likely  they  did 
not  immerse.  That  presumption  replies,  that 
the  sexes  might  be  very  decently  accommo- 
dated with  change  of  dress,  and  separate 
apartments,  though  the  Scriptures  should  no- 
tice neither.  This  presumption  affirms,  that 
persons  might  be  baptized  in  or  at  a  river, 
and  yet  no  immersion  after  all. 

Now  instead  of  determining  which  of  these 
presumptions  is  the  stronger;  we  may  learn 
thus  much  from  the  circumstances  of  bap- 
tism, and  indeed  it  is  all  we  can  learn;  and 
that  is,  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  deter- 
mine, from  any  information  they  give,  whe- 
ther baptized  persons  were  immersed  or  not. 
Nay,  so  far  are  circumstances  from  settling 
this  point,  that  we  cannot  be  certain  there 
was  a  single  person  of  all  the  baptized,  who 


OP    BAPTISM.  197 

went  into  the  water  even  ankle  deep.  This 
is  the  true  state  of  facts  as  they  strike  me, 
and  all  beyond  this  is  the  flight  of  fancy. 

Since  neither  the  term  "  baptize,"  nor  yet 
the  circumstances  of  baptism,  determine  any 
thing  concerning  the  mode,  whether  it  is  im- 
mersion or  affusion;  I  shall  in  the  next  place 
consider  the  allusions  to  that  ordinance.  I 
know  not  whether  I  speak  accurately  when 
I  call  them  allusions;  but  the  consequence 
either  way  is  not  material,  as  every  one  will 
easily  understand  what  I  intend.  Now  these 
allusions  being  of  two  kinds,  I  will,  for  the 
sake  of  distinction,  and  without  any  design 
of  offence,  call  one  the  "  Baptist  allusion," 
and  the  other  the  '^Psedobaptist  allusion." 
I  begin  with, 

I.  The  Baptist  allusion.  The  reader  will 
find  this  in  Rom.  vi.  4.  "  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,"  &c. 
A  similar  phrase  occurs  in  Col.  ii.  12.  The 
Baptists  think  there  is  an  allusion  in  these 
words  to  the  manner  of  baptizing;  and  as 
the  apostle  speaks  of  being  buried  with  him, 
they  conclude  the  mode  to  have  been  im- 
mersion.    On  this  conclusion  of  theirs, 

1.  I  observe  that  these  words  are  an  in- 
ference from  the  third  verse,  in  which  the 
apostle  says,  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of 
us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism."  We  have 
here  three  things;  1.  a  baptizing  into  Jesus 
Christ;  2.  into  his  death;  3.  into  his  burial: 


198  OF   THE    MODE 

And  the  last  is  made  the  consequence  of  the 
first.  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him, 
because  we  were  baptized  into  him.  To 
form  the  antithesis,  we  must  distinguish  be- 
tween the  life  and  death  of  Christ;  and  then 
it  will  be.  We  are  baptized  first  into  the  life 
of  Christ,  then  into  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
last  of  all  into  his  burial.  We  are  brought 
by  baptism  into  his  life,  into  his  death,  and 
into  his  burial.  Now,  if  baptism  bring  us 
into  each  of  these,  and  one  of  them,  as  the 
Baptists  say,  is  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of 
baptizing,  then,  for  the  same  reason,  so  must 
the  other  two.  That  is,  his  life  must  allude 
to  the  mode,  so  must  his  death,  and  so  must 
his  burial ;  and  the  reason  is,  because  bap- 
tism unites  us  to  him  in  each  of  these.  And 
if  all  these  are  to  alkide  to  the  mode,  I  should 
be  glad  to  know,  what  kind  of  mode  it  must 
at  last  be,  which  is  to  bear  a  resemblance  to 
every  one.  The  life  of  Christ  was  action, 
his  death  was  a  crucifixion,  his  burial  was 
the  inclosing  of  his  body  in  a  cavity  of  the 
rock.  The  mode,  therefore,  must  be  three- 
fold; it  must  represent  action,  crucifixion, 
and  inclosing  in  a  rock;  because,  to  pursue 
the  notion  of  the  Baptists,  his  life,  death, 
and  burial,  must  all  have  an  allusion  to  the 
mode  of  baptism. 

There  is  no  sect,  I  should  suppose,  that 
use  a  mode  of  baptism  to  which  all  these 
will  agree.  The  Romanists  use  salt,  oil,  and 
spittle;  but  whether  they  intend  an  allusion 
to  the  life  of  Christ,  I  cannot  take  upon  me 


OF    BAPTISM.  199 

to  affirm.  Yet,  as  they  must  have  some  al- 
lusion, the  salt  may  allude  to  his  life  of 
teaching;  the  spittle  to  his  life  of  miracles; 
and  the  oil  to  his  life  of  munificence.  The 
clergy  of  the  church  of  England  use  the  sign 
of  the  cross;  and  this  is  to  allude  to  the  cru- 
cifixion of  Christ.  The  Baptists  use  immer- 
sion; and  this  is  to  allude  to  the  burial  of 
Christ.  Now,  if  we  could  unite  all  these  in 
one,  we  should  have  a  tolerable  allusion  to 
our  Lord's  life,  death,  and  burial;  but  when 
each  is  taken  separately,  there  is  a  deficiency 
in  point  of  allusion.  The  English  clergy  are 
deficient  in  alluding  only  to  the  crucifixion; 
but  not  to  the  life  and  burial.  The  Roman- 
ists are  deficient  in  alluding  only  to  the  life 
and  crucifixion;  but  not  to  the  burial.  The 
Baptists  too  are  deficient  in  alluding  to  the 
burial  only;  but  not  to  the  life  and  crucifixion. 
T  know  not  whether  these  different  commu- 
nities take  their  document  from  this  part  of 
holy  writ;  but  certainly  they  have  the  same 
ground  if  they  choose  to  reason  in  the  same 
way.  But  as  the  Baptists  avowedly  do  this, 
and  are  at  the  same  time  so  deficient  in  the 
business  of  allusion,  it  would  become  them 
to  set  about  a  reform  in  the  mode  of  their 
baptism;  it  being  at  present  wanting  in  two 
articles,  viz.  the  life  and  crucifixion,  i.  e.  the 
sign  of  the  cross,  and  salt,  &c. 

That  the  absurdity  of  supposing  an  allu- 
sion in  this  place  to  the  mode  of  baptism  may 
appear  in  a  still  stronger  light,  I  would  ob- 
serve, that  what  the  apostle  calls,  in  ver.  3, 


200  OF    THE   MODE 

a  being  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ,  he 
expresses  in  ver.  5,  by  being  planted  toge- 
ther in  the  hkeness  of  his  death.  This  will 
be  evident  to  any  one  who  examines  the 
place.  Now  if  any  man  is  disposed,  after 
the  method  of  the  Baptists,  to  pick  up  allu- 
sions to  the  mode  of  baptism,  here  are  two 
topics  ready  at  hand,  and  he  may  take  both, 
or  either,  as  he  pleases.  It  is  usual  with  the 
Baptists,  when  contending  for  the  mode  of 
baptism,  to  affirm  that  the  apostle  calls  bap- 
tism a  burial;  aud  hence  they  infer  that  im- 
mersion must  be  the  mode.  This,  however, 
is  affirming  what  is  not  true;  for  the  apostle 
never,  in  any  of  his  writings,  calls  "  baptism 
a  burial."  But  on  the  contrary,  he  does  in 
this  verse  evidently  speak  of  it  under  the  no- 
tion of  planting;  and  says,  We  are  planted 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death.  Here  then, 
upon  the  Baptist  plan,  are  two  allusions — 
planting,  and  crucifixion.  There  are  none, 
1  believe,  who  make  planting  an  allusion  to 
the  mode  of  baptism;  but  should  this  be  at- 
tempted by  any,  they  will  have  this  one  ad- 
vantage which  the  Baptists  are  destitute  of; 
and  that  is,  that  whereas  baptism  is  no  where 
called  a  burial,  it  is  in  this  place  plainly  call- 
ed a  planting.  Now,  if  we  suppose  a  per- 
son reasoning  upon  the  plan  of  the  Baptists, 
he  will  say,  that  as  the  apostle  calls  baptism 
a  planting,  he  must  allude  to  the  mode  in 
which  that  ordinance  was  adnnnistered  ;  and 
every  one,  who  is  at  all  acquainted  with  the 
art  of  planting,  will  easily  guess  what  kind 


OF    BAPTISM.  201 

of  mode  that  must  be,  to  which  it  alludes. 
Were  this  only  adopted,  and  it  may  be  adopt- 
ed with  greater  advantage  than  the  Baptist 
plan,  we  should  probably  hear  of  some  con- 
tention about  the  mode  of  baptism,  between 
those  who  immerse  and  those  who  only 
plant;  and  in  this  case  I  can  clearly  see  that 
victory  will  crown  the  planters. 

There  is  in  the  same  way  another  allusion 
in  this  verse  to  the  mode  of  baptism;  I  have 
mentioned  it  before,  but  do  it  again  on  ac- 
count of  its  superior  evidence  to  that  allusion 
of  the  Baptists.  The  apostle  says,  we  are 
planted,  that  is,  baptized,  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death.  Now,  taking  this  for  an  allusion 
to  the  mode  of  baptism,  the  argument  for  the 
sign  of  the  cross  will  be  incomparably  strong- 
er than  that  of  the  Baptists  for  immersion. 
I  say  incomparably  stronger;  for  whereas  it 
is  only  said  in  the  fourth  verse.  We  are  bu- 
ried with  him  hy  baptism;  it  is  said  in  this 
verse.  We  are  planted  [baptized]  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  death:  there  is  nothing  about 
similitude  mentioned  in  their  allusion;  but 
here  the  word  'Mikeness"  is  actually  used. 
The  argument,  therefore,  in  favour  of  the 
sign  of  the  cross,  will,  in  the  Baptist  way  of 
arguing,  far  outweigh  that  in  favour  of  im- 
mersion. And  how  much  soever  the  Bap- 
tists may  despise  that  ceremony,  it  is  evi- 
dently better  founded  in  this  contest  than 
their  own.  So  that  if  their  argument  from 
this  place  be  good  for  immersion,  the  other 
is  far  better  for  the  sign  of  the  cross.  Upon 
IS 


202  THE    MODE 

the  whole,  the  examination  of  this  place  con- 
vinces me  of  nothing  so  much  as  this,  that 
both  the  Baptists  in  general,  and  myself  in 
particular,  have  been  carried  away  with  the 
mere  sound  of  a  word,  even  to  the  neglect  of 
the  sense,  and  scope  of  the  truth  of  God. 

2.  Leaving,  therefore,  the  whimsical  in- 
terpretation of  the  Baptists  to  itself,  it  may 
be  observed,  in  order  that  we  may  the  better 
enter  into  the  apostle's  design,  that  when  he 
says,  "  we  are  buried  with  him,  by  baptism," 
he  makes  baptism  to  be  the  instrumental 
cause  of  burial.  This  will  appear  plain  by 
asking  this  question-,  By  what  are  we  buried 
with  him?  The  answer  is.  By  baptism.  And 
indeed  baptism  is  made  the  instrumental 
cause  in  each  case.  If  we  ask,  How  are  we 
brought  into  Jesus  Christ  ?  Answer — By  bap- 
tism: ^'Baptized  into  Jesus  Christ."  How 
are  we  brought  into  his  death?  Answer — By 
baptism:  "Baptized  into  his  death."  How 
are  we  brought  into  his  burial?  Answer — 
By  baptism:  "buried  with  him  by  baptism." 
If,  therefore,  the  union  in  life,  death,  and 
burial,  be  brought  about  by  baptism,  then 
baptism  is  the  instrumental  cause  of  this 
union;  and  then  the  very  idea  of  allusion  is 
entirely  lost,  and  they  present  themselves  to 
our  view  under  the  notion  of  cause  and  effect. 
Baptism  is  made  the  cause,  and  union  in  the 
life,  death,  and  burial,  the  effect. 

Now  this  being  the  case,  instead  of  hunting 
after  allusions,  by  which  baptism  will  be  any 
thing  or  nothing;  we  must  attend  to  that 


OF    BAPTISM. 


203 


adequacy  or  proportion  in  the  cause,  by  vir- 
tue of  which  this  effect  is  to  b*fe  produced. 
This  adequacy  is  not  formally  in  outward 
baptism,  which  is  an  embleiu,  and  no  more 
than  an  emblem,  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  but  merely  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  of  which  the  other  is  an  emblem. 
1  Cor.  xii.  13.  It  is,  indeed,  the  nature  and 
design  of  both  to  bring  persons  into  union 
with  Jesus  Christ;  but  then,  the  union  will 
be  only  of  the  same  kind  with  the  baptism. 
If  the  baptism  be  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it 
brings  about  an  internal,  vital  union  with 
Jesus  Christ;  but  if  it  be  only  an  outward 
baptism,  the  union  will  only  be  visible  and 
external.  But  as  the  outward  baptism  is  an 
emblem  of  the  inward  and  vital,  the  judg- 
ment of  charity  presumes,  unless  there  be 
good  proof  to  the  contrary,  that  they  who 
voluntarily  receive  the  former,  are  also  pos- 
sessed of  the  latter.  It  is  according  to  this 
judgment  of  charity,  the  apostle  addresses 
the  Romans:  He  supposes  baptized  persons 
to  be  really  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ;  and 
then,  by  virtue  of  that  union,  they  live,  they 
die,  they  are  buried,  they  are  raised  again, 
and  walk  with  Christ  in  newness  of  life.  All 
which  the  apostle  expresses  in  these  em- 
phatic words: — Our  old  man  is  crucified  with 
him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed, 
that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin — 
Dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord — Like  as 
Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,  by  the  glo- 


204  THE    MODE 

ry  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  The  scope  of  the  apostle 
is  to  show  the  vital  influence  of  union  with 
Christ,  of  which  baptism  is  the  emblem.  And 
as  soon  as  any  one  enters  fairly  into  the  apos- 
tle's scope,  the  insignificant  idea  of  alhision 
to  the  mode  of  baptism  disappears,  and,  to 
use  Mr.  B.'s  phrase,  hides  its  impertinent 
head. — Thus  much  for  the  Baptist  allusion. 
I  shall  next  notice, 

II.  The  Poedobaptist  allusion.  According 
to  this,  the  mode  of  communicating  the  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  soul,  and  that  of 
applying  the  baptismal  water  to  the  body, 
are  viewed  as  corresponding  with  each  other. 
The  considerations  which  lead  to  this,  are 
such  as  follow: — 1.  They  both  agree  in  name. 
The  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  soul 
are  called  "  baptism,"  and  so  likewise  is  the 
external  application  of  water.  The  term 
baptism,  when  used  to  express  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  takes  in  both  his  extra- 
ordinary and  saving  influences.  Acts  i.  5; 
1  Cor.  xii.  13.  And  as  these  have  sometimes 
taken  place  in  the  same  persons,  the  term 
^'  baptize"  has  been  used  to  express  both, 
Acts  x.  44 — 46,  compared  with  Acts  xi.  16 — 
18.  2.  They  are  often  associated  in  Scrip- 
ture. How  commonly  do  we  read  such 
words  as  these,  '•  I  indeed  have  baptized  you 
with  water;  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  The  reader  will  find  this 
form  of  speech  in  the  following  places:  Matt, 
in.  11.     Mark  i.  S.     Luke  iii.  16.    John  i.  33. 


OF   BAPTISM.  205 

Acts  i.  5;  xi.  16.  3.  Their  mode  of  commu- 
nication is  expressed  in  the  same  way:  "I 
baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost. ^'  And  this  is 
done  in  all  the  places,  only  with  this  differ- 
ence, that  Luke  omits  the  preposition  in  one 
member,  and  there  it  is  understood.  4.  Bap- 
tism with  water,  is  an  emblem  of  baptism 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  application  of 
water  to  the  body,  as  noting  the  putting 
away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  shadows  forth  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which,  being 
imparted  to  the  soul,  produces  the  answer  of 
a  good  conscience  towards  God. 

Now,  if  these  two  pass  under  the  same 
name;  if  both  are  frequently  united  in  Scrip- 
ture; if  the  one  be  an  emblem  of  the  other; 
and  if  the  mode  of  communication  in  each 
baptism  be  expressed  in  the  same  way ;  then, 
the  way  to  arrive  at  a  clear  view  of  the  mode 
of  outward  baptism,  is  to  observe  in  what 
manner  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  de- 
scribed. This  will  lead  us  to  consult  a  lexi- 
con of  very  superior  kind,  a  lexicon  worth 
more  than  five  hundred  ;  and,  what  is  more, 
it  is  the  plain,  unlettered  man's  lexicon,  and 
its  title  is,  "  The  lively  oracles  of  God."  The 
article  we  are  to  seek  for,  is  the  term  baptize. 
How  does  this  lexicon  define  baptizare,  to 
baptize?  Answer — Baptizare  est  superve- 
nire,  illabi,  e ff under e — plainly,  to  baptize  is 
— to  come  upon.  Acts  i.  5. — to  shed  forth. 
Acts  ii.  33. — to  fall  upon,  Acts  xi,  15. — to 
pour  out,  Acts  ii.  17. — x.  45.     That  is,  in 


206  THE    MODE 

this  baptism  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
comes  upon — falls  upon — is  shed  forth — is 
poured  out,  namely,  on  the  soul.  This  is  the 
account  this  lexicon  gives  of  the  word  "  bap- 
tize." 

Mr.  Booth,  instead  of  paying  a  due  atten- 
tion to  this  lexicon,  has  adopted  a  method 
which,  when  properly  adverted  to,  will  do 
no  credit  to  him  or  his  book.  His  professed 
design  is  to  prove  that  the  term  "  baptize" 
means  immersion,  immersion  only,  and  no- 
thing else.  But  how  does  he  do  it?  Why, 
he  quotes  a  number  of  authors,  who,  as  he 
himself  says,  understood  the  term  to  mean 
immersion,  pouring,  and  sprinkling;  and  these 
quotations  he  calls  concessions.  Concessions 
of  what?  That  the  word  meant  immersion 
only?  If  so,  he  made  them  concede  what 
they  never  did  concede,  and  what  they  had 
no  thought  of  conceding.  If  they  made  no 
concession,  as  he  acknowledges  they  did  not, 
that  the  term  baptize  signified  immersion 
only,  what  honesty  could  there  be  in  pro- 
ducing them  at  all?  Mr.  B.'s  talent  is  quo- 
tation, and  therefore  he  must  quote;  but,  at 
the  same  time,  it  is  a  shame  to  abuse  the  liv- 
ing or  the  dead,  and  it  is  a  bad  cause  that 
requires  it;  for  what  else  is  it  but  abusing  an 
author,  when  he  is  introduced  as  granting 
that  which  in  fact  he  never  did  grant? 

But  had  Mr.  B.  consulted  the  lexicon  I 
am  speaking  of,  it  might  have  freed  him  from 
the  necessity  of  using  that  little  art  which  one 
cannot  observe  in  a  disputant  with  any  de- 


OF    BAPTISM.  207 

gree  of  pleasure.  The  authors  he  has  con- 
sulted, if  they  had  been  all  on  his  side,  (and 
I  question  whether  any  one  was  beside  the 
Quakers)  could  only  have  told  him  how  men 
understood  the  word;  but  this  lexicon  would 
have  showed  him  how  God  himself  uses  it; 
and  if  we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the 
witness  of  God  is  greater.  I  ask,  What  does 
God  witness  concerning  the  term  baptize? 
Answer — From  the  passages  before  cited  it 
is  evident  he  witnesses  this — that  the  term 
strictly  and  properly  means  to  wash,  to  pu- 
rify. What  does  God  witness  concerning  the 
mode  of  applying  the  purifying  matter?  An- 
swer— It  comes  upon,  falls  upon,  is  shed  forth, 
is  poured  out. — Why  then,  as  water  baptism 
is  an  emblem  of  this,  and  as  the  mode  of  ap- 
plication in  both  cases  is  expressed  in  the 
same  way,  we  have  a  witness  on  the  side  of 
pouring  and  sprinkling  in  baptism  infinite- 
ly more  certain  than  that  of  all  the  lexicog- 
raphers and  critics  in  the  world.  What  are 
Mr.  B.'s  eighty  abused  critics,  even  supposing 
they  had  all  been  on  his  side,  though  I  doubt 
whether  he  had  one  out  of  the  eighty;  and 
even  suppose  he  had  eight  hundred  more, 
what,  I  say,  are  all  these  when  compared  to 
the  all-wise  God  expounding  and  defining 
of  his  own  words?  Mr.  B.  has  a  Talmud 
of  his  own,  in  which  he  studies  circumcision, 
and  ill-treated  critics,  with  whom  he  imposes 
on  the  public  in  the  article  of  baptism;  and 
though  perhaps  he  may  not  yet  be  ashamed 
of  his  Talmud,  or  his  treatment,  I  believe  the 


208 


THE    MODE 


time  will  come  when  he  will  be  ashamed  of 
both. 

Notwithstanding  the  Scriptures,  when 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
make  use  of  the  phrases — come  upon — fall 
upon — shed  forth — poured  out,  Mr.  B.,  to 
evade  the  force  of  this  as  it  respects  the  mode 
of  baptizing,  has  recourse  to  two  miserable 
shifts.  In  one  case  he  would  set  aside  the 
allusion  to  the  mode,  and  in  the  other  he 
would  make  it  agree  with  immersion;  and 
as  these  are  somewhat  curious,  I  cannot  very- 
well  close  the  subject  without  taking  notice 
of  them. 

1.  To  set  aside  the  allusion,  he  takes  the 
following  course  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Wil- 
liams. Page  341,  he  says,  "  Dr.  W.  argues  in 
favour  of  pouring  and  of  sprinkling  from  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus  he  speaks: 
I  scruple  not  to  assert  it,  there  is  no  object 
whatever  in  all  the  New  Testament  so  fre- 
quently and  so  explicitly  signified  by  baptism 
as  these  divine  influences;'^  referring  to  Matt, 
iii.  11.;  Mark  i.  8,  9.;  Luke  iii.  16.  21,  22; 
and  several  other  places.  Mr.  B.,  in  answer, 
says,  p.  342,  "But  those  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture to  which  he  refers,  regard  that  copious 
and  extraordinary  effusion  (effusion,  i,  e.  pour- 
ing out)  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  was  receiv- 
ed by  the  Apostles  and  first  disciples  of  our 
Lord  soon  after  his  ascension  into  heaven.'^ 
The  truth  is,  the  term  "baptize,"  when  ap- 
plied to  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  used  to  denote 
both  his  extraordinary  and  ordinary  influ- 


OF    BAPTISM.  209 

ences,  even  those  by  which  the  mind  is  re- 
newed and  united  to  Christ;  and  so  baptism 
by  affusion  is  the  most  expressive  emblem  of 
the  communication  of  these  influences,  more 
especially  as  the  mode  of  application  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  same  way,  and  the  one  is  fairly 
an  emblem  of  the  other. 

But  Mr.  B.  does  not  seem  willing  to  ad- 
mit that  one  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  the 
other — I  say,  "  seem  willing,"  for  I  protest  I 
do  not  know,  though  I  have  his  book  before 
my  eyes,  and  have  looked  at  it  half  an  hour, 
whether  he  means  to  admit  or  deny  it.  That 
which  seems  the  most  evident  is,  he  wishes, 
by  any  means,  to  get  rid  of  it,  lose  it,  put  it 
out  of  sight,  forget  it  himself,  and  make  his 
reader  do  so  too;  but  then  how  is  this  to  be 
done?  Done!  why,  by  the  assistance  of  his 
old  impartial  friends  the  Quakers.  He  sug- 
gests that  our  viewing  water  baptism  as  an 
emblem  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
will  operate  against  its  perpetuity.  To  evince 
this  he  introduces  the  Quakers  as  reasoning 
in  the  following  manner:  "Water  baptism 
was  divinely  appointed,  and  continued  in 
force  till  the  death  of  Christ;  but  as  that  rite 
had  for  its  object  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  his  divine  influences,  no  sooner 
was  the  promised  Spirit  vouchsafed  to  our 
Lord's  disciples,  than  the  obligation  to  re- 
gard water  baptism  entirely  ceased.  For 
baptism  in  water  being  only  an  emblem  of 
the  promised  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
why  should  the  former  be  continued  after 


210  THE    MODE 

the  latter  has  taken  place  ?'^  This,  he  says, 
or  something  like  it,  if  he  mistakes  not,  is 
the  Quakers'  principal  argument;  and,  for 
aught  he  perceives,  it  is  equally  forcible  with 
that  of  his  opponent. 

I  confess  I  am  not  sufficiently  versed  in  the 
Quakers'  mode  of  reasoning  to  knov/  whether 
Mr.  B.  has  done  them  justice.  He  first 
makes  them  say  that  Baptism  continued  till 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  then  that  the  obliga- 
tion to  regard  it  ceased  when  the  promised 
Spirit  was  vouchsafed.  So  there  are  two 
periods  for  the  expiration  of  baptism.  But  I 
have  no  dispute  with  the  Quakers;  I  know 
they  are  only  brought  in  here  as  a  blind, 
that  Mr.  B.,  by  getting  behind  them,  might 
withdraw  more  easily.  I  am  persuaded  he 
does  not  approve  of  their  argument — he  only 
wanted  to  get  rid  of  the  allusion,  and  he  has 
got  rid  of  it;  but  it  is  in  the  same  way  as 
the  Quakers  get  rid  of  the  two  ordinances. 
Nay,  far  worse;  for  they  do  this  by  argu- 
ments which  they  deem  good,  but  Mr.  B. 
has  done  it  by  such  reasoning  as  he  him.self 
would  be  ashamed  to  adopt.  This  is  Mr. 
B.'s  miserable  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  allu- 
sion, viz.  by  giving  the  reader  a  Quaker's 
argument.  I  will  now  advert  to  his  other 
shift,  by  which, 

2.  He  attempts  to  make  the  allusion  agree 
with  immersion.  The  mode,  as  I  have  be- 
fore said,  of  communicating  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  is  in  Scripture  expressed  by 
coming  upon — falling  upon — shedding  forth, 


OF    BAPTISM. 


211 


— pouring  out,  and  this  mode  of  communi- 
cation is  expressly  called  baptizing.  Now, 
while  most  persons  have  considered  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  favouring  affusion, 
Mr.  B.  will  undertake  to  show  that  it  is  ex- 
pressive of  that  idea  for  which  he  contends, 
namely,  immersion.  This  is  an  attempt  in 
which!  could  wish  him  much  success;  for  if 
he  can  make  it  appear  that  pouring  out,  and 
immersing  into,  are  the  same  thing,  then 
neither  will  he  have  any  reason  to  complain 
of  those  that  pour,  nor  will  those  who  pour 
have  any  reason  to  complain  of  him.  I  fear 
it  will  prove  a  hard  task;  let  us  hear  him, 
however. 

In  vol.  i.  p.  101,  he  speaks  of  "  an  elec- 
trical bath,  so  called,  because  the  electrical 
fluid  surrounds  the  patient.^'  Well,  and  what 
then?  ''This  philosophical  document  re- 
minds me  of  the  sacred  historian's  language, 
where,  narrating  the  fact  under  considera- 
tion, thus  he  speaks:  "And  when  the  day 
of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were 
all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  ■  And  sud- 
denly there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as 
of  a  rushing   mighty  wind,  and  it  filled 

ALL  THE  HOUSE  WHERE  THEY  WERE  SIT- 
TING. And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.'  Now,  says  he,  if  the  language 
of  medical  electricity  be  just,  it  cannot  be 
absurd,  nay,  it  seems  highly  rational,  to  un- 
derstand this  language  of  inspiration,  as  ex- 


212 


THE    MODE 


pressive  of  that  idea  [immersion]  for  which 
we  contend.  Was  the  Holy  Spirit  poured 
out?  Did  the  Holy  Spirit  fall  upon  the  apos- 
tles and  others  at  that  memorable  time?  It 
was  in  such  a  manner  and  to  such  a  degree, 
that  they  were,  like  a  patient  in  the  electric 
bath,  as  if  immersed  in  it." 

This  electric  bath  is  a  pretty  fancy,  a 
happy  invention  for  Mr.  B.;  it  is  well  he 
;  did  not  live  before  it  was  found  out,  for  then 
nvhat  a  fine  thought  would  have  been  lost. 
Though  the  Holy  Spirit  fell  upon,  was 
poured  out,  yet,  says  he,  it  was  in  such  a 
manner  and  to  such  a  degree,  that  they 
were,  like  a  patient  in  the  electric  bath,  as  if 
immersed  in  it,  that  is,  immersed  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Most  persons,  I  suppose,  when  they 
read  of  the  Holy  Spirit  falling  upon  any  one, 
understand  it  to  mean  the  influence  of  that 
Spirit  coming  upon  the  soul;  but  Mr.  B. 
speaks  as  if  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  his  influence, 
fell  on  the  outside  of  the  apostles,  and  so 
surrounded  their  bodies  like  an  electric  bath. 
And  to  show  he  intended  this,  he  has  put 
these  words  in  large  capitals,  it  ^*  filled  all 

THE    HOUSE     WHERE     THEY    WERE     SITTING." 

Then  they  were  immersed  in  something 
which  filled  the  house;  I  ask,  what  was  that 
something?  In  English  it  is  expressed  by 
the  pronoun  "it" — it  filled  the  house;  the 
Greek  has  no  pronoun.  Well,  what  is  the 
antecedent  to  "it?"  I  answer,  the  word 
"sound."  The  sound,  which  was  as  a  rushing 
mighty  wind,  filled  all  the  house  where  they 


OF    BAPTISM. 


213 


The  word  in  the  Greek  is, 
eechos,  an  echo,  a  reverberating  sound.  Mr.| 
B.'s  electric  bath  was,  after  all,  nothing  morel 
than  an  echo.  He  has  been  very  silent 
about  this  electric  fluid ;  either  he  did  not 
know  what  it  was,  or  he  was  not  complai- 
sant enough  to  tell  us.  The  loss,  however, 
is  not  great ;  we  have  found  it  out  without 
him.  It  was  an  echo,  then,  that  filled  all  the 
house;  and  the  apostles,  being  immersed  in 
sound,  were  surrounded  by  the  echo,  like  a 
patient  in  an  electric  bath.  This  is  the 
beauty  of  sticking  close  to  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  the  term,  as  Mr.  B.  calls  it ;  and  so 
tenacious  is  he  of  his  primary  meaning,  that 
he  does  not  care  in  what  people  are  im- 
mersed, so  they  are  but  immersed  in  some- 
thing. 

To  be  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to 
receive  his  influence  on  the  heart  and  mind; 
but  this  baptism,  according  to  Mr.  B.,  is  to 
have  the  body  surrounded  by  an  echo.  Is 
then  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  falling  upon 
the  heart,  and  a  reverberating  sound  sur- 
rounding the  body,  the  same  thing?  Mr.  B. 
is  a  dreadful  confounder  of  things  that  diff"er! 
He  said  once  that  an  obedient  subject  of  the 
civil  government  and  a  complete  church 
member  were  the  same  thing;  does  he  think 
too  that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
nothing  more  than  an  echo? — So  much  for 
the  electric  bath  and  the  Quaker's  argument? 
These  are  Mr.  B.'s  two  miserable  shifts,  by 
which  he  would  evade  the  argument  from 


214  THE    MODE 

the  Holy  Spirit's  baptism  in  favour  of  affu- 
sion; and  miserable  ones  they  are  as  ever 
made  their  appearance  in  public. 

I  shall  now  close  what  I  mean  to  say  on 
the  mode,  by  collecting  the  particulars,  and 
placing  them  in  one  view.  The  word  hap- 
tizo,  used  for  this  ordinance,  means  washing 
only,  but  not  any  mode  of  washing:  It  means 
neither  dipping,  pouring,  nor  sprinkling;  for 
these  are  only  ditferent  ways  of  washing,  i.  e. 
baptizing.  They,  therefore,  who  say  that 
the  word  rantism  [sprinkling]  is  not  the  same 
as  baptism,  say  nothing  but  what  is  very 
right;  for  rantize  differs  from  baptize,  as  the 
manner  of  doing  differs  from  the  thing  done; 
and  the  same  is  true  of  immersion  and  pour- 
ing. Yet,  at  the  same  time,  it  must  be  ob- 
served that  the  word  baptism  is  used  in  Scrip- 
ture where  pouring  and  sprinkling  are  evi- 
dently intended;  while  it  cannot  be  proved 
that  it  is  ever  used  either  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment or  in  the  Sepfuagint  where  immersion 
took  place.  The  New  Testament  I  have  ex- 
amined; I  will  here  just  notice  the  two  places 
where  it  occurs  in  the  Septuagint.  2  Kings, 
V.  14.  And  Naaman  went  down  and  baptized 
in  Jordan.  The  English  has  it  "  dipped," 
and  this  is  the  only  place  where  baptize  is 
translated  "  dip;"  but  whether  there  was  an 
immersion  of  the  whole  body,  or  any  part  of 
it,  is  altogether  uncertain.  All  we  can  be 
certain  of  is,  that  the  prophet  ordered  him  to 
wash,  his  servant  advised  him  to  wash,  and 
he  went  down  and  baptized  according  to  the 


OF    BAPTISM.  215 

word  of  Elisha.  Now  there  are  two  reasons 
which  induce  some  to  think  he  appUed  water 
to  one  part  of  his  body  only:  1,  As  he  ex- 
pected the  prophet  to  strike  his  hand  over 
the  place,  and  recover  the  leper,  they  con- 
clude he  was  leprous  only  in  one  part  of  his 
body,  and  that  the  water  was  applied  to  that 
part.  2.  The  command  to  wash  seven  times, 
they  consider  as  referring  to  that  part  of  the 
law  of  cleansing  in  which  the  leper  is  order- 
ed to  be  sprinkled;  but,  for  my  own  part,  I 
think  it  impossible  to  say  in  what  manner  he 
baptized.  The  other  is  merely  figurative, 
expressive  of  a  sense  of  God's  anger,  and 
occurs  in  Isaiah,  xxi.  4.  And  sin  baptizes 
me;  meaning  the  punishment  due  to  sin, 
which  is  expressed  by  pouring  out  anger, 
fury,  &c.  on  a  person.  From  these  premises 
the  unforced  conclusion  is  this:  That,  on  the 
one  hand,  as  the  word  baptize  is  expressive 
of  no  particular  mode,  nothing  can  be  con- 
cluded from  it  in  favour  of  one  more  than 
another  f  so,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  word 
has  certainly  been  used  for  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  while  there  is  no  proof  of  its  ever 
being  used  in  Scripture  for  immersion,  it  does 
more  naturally  associate  itself  with  affusion 
and  aspersion.  With  regard  to  the  circum- 
stances of  baptism,  they  afford  no  certain 
proof  on  either  side.  We  can  do  no  more 
than  presume, and  this  maybe  done  on  both 
sides.  There  is  presumption  for  or  against, 
and  fancy,  as  it  may  happen  to  favour  any 
one  side,  will  form  the  conclusion;  but  as  the 


216  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

circumstances  carry  us  no  further  than  pre- 
sumption, no  certain  conclusion  can  be  form- 
ed either  for  immersion  or  against  it.  The 
ahusions,  I  observed,  were  of  two  kinds;  the 
one  I  have  called  the  Baptist  allusion,  the 
other  the  Psedobaptist  allusion.  The  Baptist 
allusion  is  entirely  founHed  in  mistake,  and 
that  through  a  non-attention  to  the  design  and 
scope  of  the  apostle;  for  in  the  same  way  as 
the  Baptists  make  an  allusion  to  immersion, 
the  context  will  furnish  allusions  to  other 
modes:  and  disputants,  were  they  so  inclined, 
might  plead  with  more  advantage  for  the 
sign  of  the  cross,  &c.  than  the  Baptists  can 
for  immersion.  The  Paedobaptists'  allusion 
consists  in  this:  They  consider  the  two  bap- 
tisms, the  material  and  the  spiritual,  as  being 
the  one  a  shadow  or  figure  of  the  other,  and 
the  mode  of  the  material  as  resembling  that 
of  the  spiritual.  And,  therefore,  as  divine 
influence  in  spiritual  baptism  is  said  to  come 
upon — fall  upon — to  be  shed  forth — poured 
out,  and  as  material  baptism  is  to  be  a  signi- 
ficant emblem  of  this,  the  allusion  is  decided- 
ly in  favour  of  pouring  and  sprinkling.  And 
that  this  is  the  true  state  of  the  matter  ap- 
pears by  this:  That  the  Scriptures  commonly 
join  material  and  spiritual  baptism  together 
as  counterparts  of  each  other,  and  express 
them  by  the  same  word,  and  describe  them, 
as  to  their  mode,  in  the  same  way.  The 
consequence  then  is,  that  as  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit  is  pouring,  shedding,  &c.,  and  as 
the  baptism  of  water  is  to  represent  that,  and 


USE    OF  INFANT   BAPTISM.  217 

is  described,  as  to  its  mode,  in  the  same  way, 
that  mode  must  of  necessity  be  pouring  or 
sprinkhng. 


THE  USE  OF  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

As  I  have  often  heard  it  asked,  What  is  the 
use  of  infant  baptism?  I  think  it  necessary, 
before  I  conclude,  to  say  something  in  an- 
swer to  that  question.  With  regard  to  the 
use  of  baptism  I  consider  it  in  the  hght  of  a 
mean  of  grace,  and  I  view  it  in  the  same 
way  when  applied  to  infants.  I  do  not  sup- 
pose that  infants,  properly  speaking,  receive 
any  present  benefit  by  being  baptized,  but 
that  this  is  designed  the  more  to  engage  the 
attention  of  parents,  and  others  to  the  rising 
generation.  I  view  infants,  when  baptized, 
under  the  notion  of  persons  entered  into  a 
school;  and,  therefore,  I  consider  parents, 
pastors,  and  deacons,  and  church-members, 
at  large,  as  brought  under  an  additional  ob- 
ligation to  instruct  those  children  who  are 
become  scholars,  as  they  become  able  to 
learn,  in  the  peculiar  truths  of  the  religion  of 
Christ.  Viewing  the  matter  in  this  light,  it 
assumes  an  importance  exceedingly  grand; 
and  infant  baptism  is  far  from  being  that  un- 
meaning thing,  which  it  appears  to  be,  when 
19 


218  THE   USE    OF 

the  views  are  extended  no  further  than  help- 
less infancy. 

We  may  illustrate  this  by  taking  a  view 
of  circumcision.  Circumcision  brought  per- 
sons under  an  obligation  of  conforming  to 
the  revealed  will  of  God;  he  who  was  cir- 
cumcised became  a  debtor:  and  as  this  was 
the  nature  of  the  institute,  the  obligation  de- 
volved on  all  who  received  it.  But  for  as 
much  as  persons  cannot  actually  conform  be- 
fore they  are  brought  to  understand,  and,  in 
order  that  they  may  understand,  they  must 
be  taught,  we  are,  therefore,  to  consider  cir- 
cumcised infants  as  standing  in  the  place  of 
scholars  or  disciples  to  be  instructed  in  that 
system  to  which  they  were  bound  to  con- 
form. If  then  circumcision  brought  an  ob- 
ligation on  some  to  learn,  it  must,  at  the 
same  time,  bring  an  obligation  on  others  to 
teach;  because  usually  persons  do  not  learn 
without  being  taught:  and  hence  parents, 
priests,  and  people,  came  under  their  respec- 
tive degrees  of  obligation  to  see  the  rising 
generation  instructed  in  that  religion  into 
which  they  were  initiated  as  scholars  or  dis- 
ciples. When  I  consider  this  divine  institute 
as  calculated  to  fix  the  attention  of  the  peo- 
ple on  their  rising  offspring,  with  respect  to 
their  instruction  in  the  things  of  God,  I  can- 
not sufficiently  wonder  at  that  poor  heathenish 
notion  of  circumcision  which  Mr.  Booth  has 
somewhere  picked  up, or  rather  invented  him- 
self, than  which,  I  am  persuaded,  the  most 
ignorant  Jew  never  entertained  a  meaner. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


219 


It  is  for  want  of  viewing  the  matter  in  this 
way,  that  an  institute,  administered  to  an 
infant,  appears  ridiculous  to  any.  When  the 
attention  is  fixed  on  the  infant  only,  whether 
it  be  a  circumcised  or  a  baptized  infant,  with- 
out considering  any  thing  farther,  we  may 
well  say,  as  the  Baptists  do.  What  can  an 
infant  know?  What  can  an  infant  do  ?  What 
use  can  it  be  to  an  infant?  In  such  a  case, 
it  is  very  true,  it  would  be  a  difficult  thing 
to  discern  any  wisdom  in  the  administration 
of  an  institute  of  any  kind  to  an  infant.  And 
I  remember  once  conversing  with  a  Bap- 
tist upon  infant  baptism,  who,  among  other 
things,  observed  what  a  silly  thing  it  was  to 
baptize  an  infant.  As  I  perceived  his  views 
extended  no  further  than  helpless  infancy,  I 
asked  him,  whether,  if  he  had  seen  it  done, 
he  would  not  have  thought  it  a  very  silly 
thing  to  circumcise  an  infant?  ''That  I 
should  indeed,"  said  he,  "indeed  I  should;" 
these,  as  well  as  I  can  recollect,  were  his 
very  words.  But  when,  on  the  contrary,  our 
views  take  in  the  grand  design  of  engaging 
the  attention  the  more  fixedly  to  the  rising 
race,  all  the  supposed  silliness  vanishes  away, 
and  it  appears  a  plan  worthy  the  wisdom  and 
kindness  of  God. 

I  was  led  more  particularly  to  view  the 
matter  in  this  point  of  light,  by  considering 
that  commission  given  to  the  apostles  by  the 
risen  Saviour,  respecting  the  Gentile  nations, 
Matt,  xxviii.  18, 19,20.  "  All  power  is  given 
unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.   Go  ye  there- 


220  THE  USE  OF 

fore,  ^ndijmatheeteusaie,disc\i)\e  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
didaskontes,  teaching  them  to  observe  ail 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you, 
&c."  Here  we  have  the  whole  plan  just  as 
I  have  set  it  down  in  the  case  of  circumcision: 
they  are  sent  to  make  disciples  (scholars;) 
for  discipidus  in  Latin,  and  scholar  in  Eng- 
lish, are  just  the  same;  they  are  to  enter 
such  as  are  made  scholars  by  baptism;  they 
are  to  instruct  these  scholars  in  the  things  of 
Christ,  in  order  that  they  may  observe  them. 
Our  blessed  Lord,  by  making  use  of  the  words 
7natheeteusate,  make  disciples,  and  didaskon- 
tes,  teaching,  carries  our  views  immediately 
to  matheeiai,  discipuli,  scholars,  and  didas- 
kaloi, prascepto7'es,  school-masters;  and  thus 
we  are  presented  with  a  Christian  school 
with  scholars  and  masters. 

According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  and 
to  this  our  Lord's  words  naturally  lead  us, 
there  appears  not  only  a  grandeur  of  design, 
but  likewise  an  exact  symmetry  in  the  differ- 
ent dispensations  of  God — I  mean  that  atten- 
tion to  the  rising  offspring,  which  had  shown 
itself  in  a  former  dispensation,  and,  no  doubt, 
in  all.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  our  Lord 
uses  a  term,  a  school  term,  which  will  agree 
to  an  infantas  well  as  an  adult;  for  the  word 
matheetees,  a  scholar,  of  which  the  word  used 
by  our  Lord  is  the  theme,  does  not  necessari- 
ly intend  previous  learning  nor  present  learn- 
ing, but  only  learning  in  design.     We  call 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  221 

those  scholars,  who  have  done  learning,  and 
so  we  do  those  who  are  now  at  their  studies, 
and  so  likewise  those  who  have  not  yet  be- 
gun to  learn,  provided  they  are  entered  for 
that  purpose:  so  that  the  idea  of  learning 
does  not  necessarily  annex  itself  to  the  term 
matheetees,  scholar,  any  further  than  to  de- 
note a  person  who  is  entered  into  a  school 
with  a  view  to  learn. 

But  here  it  may  be  asked.  What  propriety 
can  there  be,  in  caUing  a  person  a  disciple 
or  scholar,  who  is  yet  incapable  of  learning? 
I  reply,  he  is  properly  so  called,  because  he 
is  entered  with  that  design:  e.g.  Numbers 
iii.  28.  "  In  the  number  of  all  the  males, 
from  a  month  old  and  upwards,  were  eight 
thousand  and  six  hundred,  keeping  the 
charge  of  the  sanctuary."  Can  any  body 
tell  me  how  a  child  of  six  weeks  old  could 
be  a  keeper  of  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary? 
Certainly  he  could  no  otherwise  be  called  a 
keeper,  but  as  one  designed  and  appointed  to 
that  service.  Just  with  the  same  propriety, 
an  infant,  who,  by  circumcision  or  baptism, 
was  or  is  publicly  entered  into  a  religious 
school,  may  be  called  a  disciple  in  a  religi- 
ous sense.  And  it  is  a  very  general  opinion, 
that  infants  are  actually  so  called  in  Acts  xv. 
10.  "Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  on 
the  neck  of  the  disciples?'^  That  infants  are 
called  disciples  will  appear  plain,  if  we  ask, 
On  whose  neck  was  this  yoke  to  have  come? 
Every  one  knows,  who  knows  the  manner 
of  Moses   respecting    circumcision,   that   it 


222  THE   USE   OF 

would  have  come  on  adults,  but  chiefly  on 
infants;  and  then  it  is  evident,  that  as  part 
of  those,  on  whom  the  yoke  would  have 
come,  were  infants,  it  is  as  evident,  that 
those  infants  were  called  disciples:  But  whe- 
ther this  be  so  or  not,  the  word  made  use  of 
by  our  Lord  will  agree  to  infants  as  well  as 
adults. 

The  apostles  are  to  make  disciples — that 
is  all  tnatheeteusate  imports.  But  still  the 
question  is,  How^  are  they  to  make  them?  I 
answer,  By  teaching;  for  neither  adult  nor 
infant  can  be  made  a  disciple  without.  And 
herein  the  Baptists  are  very  right,  and  I 
agree  with  them,  that  adults  and  infants 
must  be  made  disciples  by  teaching,  or  they 
will  not  be  made  so  at  all.  But  then  how 
can  an  infant  be  made  a  disciple  by  teach- 
ing? I  reply,  not  directly,  but  indirectly; 
that  is,  the  parents,  being  won  over  by 
teaching  to  embrace  the  truth,  they  present 
their  infants  to  the  Christian  school  to  be 
trained  up  in  the  same  truth;  and  thus  they 
become  disciples:  e.  g.  Joel  is  to  sanctify  a 
fast,  and  call  a  solemn  assembly,  to  gather 
the  people,  elders,  children,  and  those  that 
suck  the  breasts.  But  how  is  he  to  assem- 
ble them?  He  is  to  blow  a  trumpet  in  Zion. 
But  what  does  a  sucking  child  know  about 
the  sound  of  a  trumpet?  I  answer,  he  knows 
nothing  at  all  about  it.  How  then  are  suck- 
ing children  to  be  brought  together  by  the 
sound  of  a  trumpet,  seeing  they  know  no- 
thing of  the  trumpet  or  its  sound?    I  reply, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  223 

In  the  same  way  as  infants  are  made  disci- 
ples by  teaching.  But  how  is  that?  Every 
one  knows  how  it  is,  who  knows  any  thing; 
and  this  I  have  ah'eady  explained.  If  tlie 
trumpet  had  not  been  sounded,  the  sucklings 
would  not  have  been  collected,  and  if  men 
were  not  taught,  infants  would  not  become 
disciples:  So  then  infants  as  well  as  men  are 
made  disciples  by  teaching,  as  elders  and 
sucking  children  are  brought  to  the  fast  by 
the  sound  of  a  trumpet. 

Viewing  baptism  as  introducing  infants 
into  a  visible  state  of  discipleship,  we  are  to 
consider  others  as  teachers  and  overlookers 
of  these  disciples;  and  then  the  usefulness 
of  such  an  institute  will  display  itself  be- 
fore us.  We  see  an  infant  baptized.  If  our 
views  terminate  there,  alas!  what  is  it?  In- 
fant sprinkling  only,  the  baptism  of  a  baby. 
Things  which  are  little  in  themselves,  be- 
come great  by  their  connexion  with,  and  re- 
lation to,  others.  We  see  an  infant  baptiz- 
ed— What  does  it  import?  He  is  received 
into  discipleship,  i.  e.  to  be  a  scholar  in  a 
Christian  school.  Now  carry  your  views 
into  the  department  of  parents,  pastors,  dea- 
cons, and  members;  and  listen  to  the  silent 
language  of  this  institution.  '^Parents,  pas- 
tors, and  people,  pray  for  us;  during  our  ten- 
der infancy,  pray  for  us.  And  when  matur- 
ed by  age,  cause  the  doctrine  which  you  pro- 
fess, to  drop  upon  us  as  the  rain,  to  distil  as 
dew,  as  the  small  rain  upon  the  tender  herb, 
and  as  showers  upon  the  grass.    Watch  over 


224  THE    USE    OF 

US  with  united  care,  and  bring  us  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.''  It  is 
a  dispensation  grand  and  merciful,  which  is 
calculated  more  powerfully  to  turn  the  atten- 
tion of  men  to  the  concerns  of  those  who  are 
rising  into  life,  and  posting  into  eternity. 

There  is  one  fault  among  others  in  the 
Baptist  system,  that  it  places  the  rising  gene- 
ration so  entirely  out  of  sight.  I  do  not 
mean  that  the  Baptists  themselves  do  this: 
for  their  conduct  in  this  respect  is  much  bet- 
ter than  their  system;  but  their  system  places 
them  out  of  sight.  And  in  this,  it  differs  from 
all  the  dispensations  of  God,  of  which  we 
have  any  particular  knowledge;  which  alone 
would  lead  to  a  presumption,  that  it  is  not  of 
God. 

To  what  I  have  said  concerning  the  use 
of  infant  baptism,  under  the  idea  of  an  in- 
stitution suited  to  draw  the  attention  more 
powerfully  to  the  immortal  concerns  of  the 
rising  generation,  (and  he  must  be  very  in- 
attentive to  human  nature,  who  does  not  see 
a  beauty  and  blessedness  in  such  a  contri- 
vance;) there  is  no  objection  that  can  be 
brought  by  a  Baptist,  but  may  be  retorted. 
He  may  say.  Cannot  all  this  be  done  with- 
out baptizing  infants?  Retort:  Cannot  men 
be  built  up  in  faith  and  love,  without  either 
baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper? — Are  not 
many  baptized  infants  as  destitute  of  real  re- 
hgion  as  others?  Ret. — And  are  not  many 
baptized  adults,  as  destitute  of  religion  as 
heathens?    Are  not  many  unbaptized  infants 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  225 

brought  up  in  Christian  knowledge  equally 
as  well  as  the  baptized  ones?  Ret. — And 
are  not  many,  who  have  not  been  baptized 
in  adult  age,  as  gracious  and  holy  as  those 
who  have.''  In  this  way  every  objection 
which  can  be  brought  may  easily  be  retort- 
ed on  the  bringer. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  the  enjoyment  of  or- 
dinances is  to  be  considered  only  as  a  mean 
of  grace;  they  are  well  suited  as  ordinances 
to  impress  the  mind;  but  then,  it  is  very  cer- 
tain, they  effect  nothing,  unless  God  is  pleased 
to  give  the  increase.  The  possession  of  the 
word  of  God,  the  enjoyment  of  preaching, 
baptism,  the  Lord's  supper,  are  good  things 
in  themselves,  though  many  are  never  the 
better  for  them;  but  we  are  to  estimate  these 
things  not  by  the  advantage  which  some  re- 
ceive, but  by  their  own  suitableness  to  pro- 
mote, as  means,  some  great  ends. 

When  we  consider  infants  under  the  notion 
of  disciples,  or  scholars,  the  idea  suggests  to 
us  a  noble  kind  of  discipline  in  the  church  of 
God.  It  suggests,  that  all  those  infants  who 
were  baptized,  should  be  formed,  as  they  be- 
come capable,  into  societies,  for  the  purpose 
of  Christian  instruction;  and  so  every  church 
should  have  its  school.  That  there  should 
be  in  churches,  not  only  poimenai,  pastors, 
but  didaskaloi,  schoolmasters,  Eph.  iv.  11. 
That  the  minister,  and  other  fit  persons, 
should  preside  over  these  little  disciples;  and 
parents  who  bring  their  children  to  baptism, 
should  consider  themselves  as  bound  in  con- 
.J"-  20 


226  THE    USE     OF 

science  to  see  them  forth-coming  to  this  so- 
ciety at  ail  appointed  seasons.  That  all  the 
members  should  watch  over  them,  with 
respect  to  their  morals,  and  likewise  their 
Christian  learnuig.  In  short,  the  whole 
should  be  a  church  business,  regulated  in  the 
manner  of  doing  according  to  the  wisdom  of 
each  Christian  society.  For  as  the  infant  is 
received  by  the  church  as  a  disciple  in  its 
baptism,  the  church  becomes  bound  to  regard 
that  infant  as  such;  and  to  see  that  it  is  treat- 
ed as  a  scholar  of  Christ.  To  all  this,  it  is 
plain,  the  idea  of  discipleship  leads;  and  in 
this  view  it  becomes  greatly  important,  as  its 
tendency  is  to  draw  the  cares  and  prayers  of 
the  whole  Christian  church  towards  the  rising 
generation. 

There  are  many  special  uses  connected 
with  this  grand  leading  idea,  which  the  limit 
of  this  essay  will  not  permit  me  to  mention. 
I  cannot  say  how  far  the  leading  idea  itself 
is  attended  to  by  those  who  adopt  infant 
baptism;  if  it  be  not,  it  is  so  much  the  more 
to  be  lamented,  that  in  this,  as  well  as  in 
other  things,  the  spirit  of  an  institute  is  not 
followed  up  to  its  proper  scope.  It  is  suffi- 
cient, notwithstanding,  to  my  present  pur- 
pose, in  showing  the  usefulness  of  an  ordi- 
nance, if  there  be  a  natural  fitness,  in  the 
ordinance  itself,  to  promote  the  great  end  I 
have  mentioned.  And  as  every  system  we 
embrace  is  likely  to  impress  our  minds  ac- 
cording to  its  nature ;  that  system  must  be 
eminently  good  and  useful,  which  is  calcu- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  227 

lated,  most  of  all,  to  bring  the  rising  genera- 
tion, and  their  everlasting  concerns  to  our 
mind;  to  hold  them  up  perpetually  before 
our  eyes;  and  to  fix  them  habitually  upon 
our  hearts. — All  this  the  admission  of  infants 
by  baptism  to  a  state  of  discipleship  in  the 
church  of  God,  is  evidently  calculated  to  do; 
and  herein  I  judge  its  main  usefulness  con- 
sists. 


THE    END. 


Date  Due 

Ai^se*-^ 

~ 

- 

m 

'"TTTiJU 

f 

^iiiii^^M?iiiiII'm.'P^''^^'  Seminary   Libraries 


•"    ^' 


1    1012   01196   8247 


